The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-11431, in the name of Christine Grahame, on a shocking way to treat a dog. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament commends the Welsh Assembly for passing in 2010 a ban on the use of electronic collars on cats and dogs and setting a penalty of a fine of up to £20,000 or six months in prison; notes that there are bans in, inter alia, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Germany; understands that, when the Scottish Government consulted on their use in 2007, most animal welfare organisations including the Scottish SPCA, the Scottish Kennel Club and the Dogs Trust supported a ban, as did ACPOS; considers that the Scottish Government’s reliance on guidance on usage and manufacturing standards is insufficient given that a range of devices is readily available online, that many users dispense with the guidance and that, in any event, research by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs demonstrates that there are long-term negative impacts on dog welfare, and notes the view that the Scottish Government should reconsider its position and follow Wales’s lead and ban the use in Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale and throughout Scotland.
12:35
I thank all the members who signed my motion to ban the use of electronic shock collars on dogs and cats. I convey the apologies of Claudia Beamish, who very much supports a ban but cannot be at the debate. I invite those who have not signed the motion to come along to committee room 1 today and try on a collar for themselves. Members of the press, too, are welcome to take up the challenge. People’s necks will be spared, but not their wrists. If they chicken out, they are saying, “I don’t want the pain of this, but it’s okay for dogs and cats.” That does not say much for them. Of course, if members supported the motion, they are excused—otherwise, they will certainly be on my name and shame list.
Why lodge this motion? I am the chair of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on animal welfare and we put our money where our mouth was and decided that we wished to have the issue debated. Along with others, including Elaine Murray and Alison Johnstone, I have lodged a sequence of parliamentary questions in pursuit of a ban and to flush out the Government’s reasons for opposing a ban. I recognise the commitment of my colleague Kenny Gibson to the issue, too.
The Scottish Government maintains its position that Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs research does not support the proposition that the effect of these devices does either long-term or significant harm to dogs’ welfare but the Government further takes the view that collars should be used “responsibly”, as stated in a parliamentary answer on 27 June last year.
Obviously, I disagree with the Scottish Government’s position, as does the Welsh Assembly, which banned the use of such collars in 2010—in Wales, usage can make people liable for quite severe penalties of up to 51 weeks’ imprisonment or a fine of up to £20,000 or both. That was done by regulation under animal welfare legislation and the same could be done here. The Welsh ministers made their decision only after receiving advice from the chief veterinary officer for Wales and based the decision on evidence from consultations and DEFRA research. That legislation was challenged by the Electronic Collar Manufacturers Association, as we would expect. It lost and the ban remains.
The mystery to me is why the Scottish Government adheres to its view, for it is not just Wales that has banned the use of electronic shock collars—count in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Germany, Slovenia and most states in Australia, which have all banned their use.
How can sending an electronic shock through a dog’s or cat’s neck for “training” purposes possibly be defended? Shock collars can also perversely cause further behavioural problems. A dog may associate the electric shock with other events at the same time, with unintended consequences, such as perhaps attacking other dogs.
I have had pet animals for more than 40 years and would never countenance using pain to train—quite the opposite. Despite the different temperaments of my pet cats and dog over the years, I have found that kindness and patience through understanding the animals’ behaviour has allowed training to be successful. Indeed, that is a policy that has been followed by my sequence of cats, who have long since got the measure of me and, having observed my behaviour and seen what works for them, have trained me over the years without the use of a shock collar.
However, let us park personal anecdote and sentiment and go for hard facts. In its funded studies, published in 2013, DEFRA concluded that there was great variability in how shock collars were used on dogs and that owners tended either not to read or not to follow instructions, so the main conclusion was that there were significant welfare consequences for some of the dogs.
By the way, it is easy enough to buy the devices online, with prices ranging from about £20 to hundreds of pounds. Goodness knows who is buying them, whether they bother to read the manuals, and how and where the devices are being used. I suspect that if you or I saw one being applied in public, we would be appalled. Not only does 73 per cent of the public disapprove of the use of these devices, 74 per cent would support a ban.
I know of one group in which 100 per cent of people would vote against shock collars, and they put it better than me or any other politician. Here is what they said:
“In trials 1 in 4 dogs showed signs of stress”;
“It will make dogs sad”;
“If you have a shock collar you are a bad person”;
“Why shock a dog when you can train them to do good things”;
“Stop hurting my friends”;
“Imagine getting shocked for up to 30 seconds you wouldn’t like it”;
“The majority of people love pets, but some people take it way too far, yes dogs and cats can make mistakes just like us really but that doesn’t give you the right to Zap them in the neck, does it”;
and
“If I was at this debate I would vote to ban them forever”.
Those are the voices of primary 7 pupils at Mauricewood primary school in Penicuik.
I give notice to the minister that I feel a campaign coming on if the Government remains obdurate, and I have colleagues in various parties who I think would support a campaign. Such a campaign would be supported not only by colleagues in the Parliament and by the Mauricewood pupils, but—we should remember—by the vast majority of the public.
My offer remains open to members of the Parliament and their staff, the press and anyone else. If they think that a shock collar on a dog or a cat is just fine and dandy, I ask them to come and try one on themselves in committee room 1. I think that they will change their minds.
12:41
I congratulate Christine Grahame on bringing the debate to the chamber and drawing attention to the continued unacceptable practice of using electric shock collars to attempt to control the behaviour of dogs and—even more surprisingly—of cats.
My former colleague Maureen Macmillan proposed an amendment to the bill that became the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, in the hope of banning the devices. Ross Finnie, as a minister at the time, stated that ministers wanted instead to issue a consultation on the use of the devices, and that section 23 of the bill would provide for Scottish ministers to make regulations to ban them.
I do not know whether the consultation that Ross Finnie suggested was ever carried out, but, almost nine years on, the devices have certainly not been banned, although they were banned in Wales in 2010. Perhaps the minister, in summing up, could indicate whether there has been any consultation on the use of electric shock collars and, if so, what the conclusions were.
The administration of pain as a training method for training dogs is predicated on an outdated view of dog behaviour, which is itself based on a misconception of wolf behaviour. Studies of unrelated wolves in captivity in the mid-20th century gave rise to the popular theory that wolf packs consisted of a pair of alpha wolves, whose status in the pack had to be continually reinforced or else they would be overthrown by one of the beta wolves who wanted their job. However, most recent studies of related wolves in the wild indicate that they live in extended family packs with one breeding pair, which would otherwise be known as parents.
The consequence of the application of the former model, based on wolves in captivity, to the behaviour of dogs with millennia of socialisation with and selective breeding by humans, has been the notion that, unless the human owner continually demonstrates that he or she is the boss, the dog will overthrow them and become the top dog and leader of the household, and so the human has continually to exert their authority by force.
In fact, dogs have evolved a surprisingly complex system of communication with humans over millennia. They are happy to accept food and warmth from us and they show no desire to undertake our responsibilities. Unless you see a Jack Russell-Chihuahua cross dog sitting in my chair some time, I suspect that they will continue in that way.
Dogs respond to positive reinforcement and reward. If a dog displays challenging or threatening behaviour, it has probably not been trained to use peaceful and acceptable methods of communication. It is most likely that its owner has used aggressive and violent methods of control. Sudden and unexpected pain such as that caused by an electric shock will frighten and confuse the dog and is likely to cause it to panic, and the dog may then become aggressive. The dog may not associate the behaviour for which it is being punished with the pain that is caused. Recurrent pain in dogs has been shown to increase levels of cortisol, a hormone that is associated with stress response.
One of the purposes of the shock collars is to control barking. Dogs bark to communicate with each other, to indicate that their home is their territory, and to communicate with people, perhaps to tell us that another dog or person is in the vicinity. The dog might want attention or be lonely or bored. Excessive barking might be annoying, but no dog intends to annoy by barking or barks from devilment. Rather than shocking the dog for reasons that it will not understand, the reason for its barking should be analysed, addressed and discouraged. There are many ways of discouraging a dog from excessive barking although they are not always successful, I have to say.
I am certain that this is an animal welfare issue. We ought to have banned these devices years ago. We must return to considering a ban either by using section 23 of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 as was suggested back in 2006, or through any forthcoming legislation on responsible dog ownership. I believe that there will be an announcement on the results of that consultation soon.
12:45
I thank Christine Grahame for securing the time to debate this important matter and Dogs Trust, the Kennel Club and OneKind for their comprehensive briefings.
I have a keen interest in animal welfare and, over the past few years in conjunction with Dogs Trust and the Kennel Club, I have organised a number of free dog-related events in my constituency and here in the Parliament.
Cruel training methods, including the continual use of electronic training devices, are abhorrent. Since my election in 2007, I have raised the matter on a number of occasions with Scottish ministers with a view to having these cruel devices banned. Frankly, I have been disappointed by the responses that I have received over the years and the debating tactics that appear to me to have been imposed. I hope that the new minister will take a fresh and more positive approach to the issue.
Electronic training devices, or e-collars as they are most commonly known, are used primarily to establish obedience, correct behaviour and prevent straying over designated boundaries. That is accomplished through administering an electric shock, manually or automatically, through the collar when the dog behaves in a way that its owner or trainer does not approve of. Although some dog owners swear by such training methods, there is no doubt that the practice is cruel and can result in more complex and dangerous behavioural conditions.
Out of ignorance, many people assume that e-collars provide a light electrical pulse that will barely register with a dog but will provide enough of a current to be deemed uncomfortable. Sadly, that is completely untrue. If members take up Christine Grahame’s offer, I am sure that they will find that out for themselves.
A small industry has sprung up around the manufacture of such devices and many products are now highly sophisticated, with multiple levels of shock and vibration depending on how stubborn the animal might be. People who have experienced the shock will know how distressing it must be for an animal that is unable to escape from a collar that is strapped around its neck. Worryingly, evidence provided by DEFRA shows that many owners who purchase the devices do not consult the instructions properly and often guesstimate their dog’s stubbornness and set the electronic pulses as they see fit.
I do not favour any half measures and remain in favour of a complete ban on e-collars, but allowing untrained individuals to use them on animals is worrying and surely underpins the need for legislative action. As we know from Mr Pavlov’s experiments, dogs can be conditioned and ultimately trained by introducing positive and negative stimuli. Dogs Trust and the Kennel Club are of the firm opinion that positive training methods whereby dogs are rewarded for good behaviour are the best, most efficient and most humane way to train a dog.
Evidence provided by those charities shows that the negative stimuli that are provided by e-collars can lead to serious problems. For example, dogs often wrongly associate something in the environment with the shock they have received, which can lead to them becoming aggressive towards other animals and individuals, and can result in confusion, phobia, defensiveness and ultimately non-compliance. When, for millennia, conventional and positive training methods have prevailed, it seems strange to me that owners would choose to adopt such a cruel and ineffective method of training their dog.
Many of our European neighbours have chosen to ban e-collars despite a ban being contested by the manufacturers of the devices. Unfortunately, while it is well intentioned, the guidance provided by the Scottish Government does not go far enough, and we know that the public support a ban.
Along with compulsory microchipping, I frankly do not understand why the Scottish Government is dragging its feet on this issue. Surely it is now time for the Government to follow the lead of the Welsh Assembly and our European neighbours and introduce a ban on the sale and use of these devices in Scotland.
12:50
As this is the first time that I have met the minister in debate since her recent promotion, I welcome her to her new position.
I, too, congratulate Christine Grahame on securing this members’ business debate and commend her on-going work in the area. Although a well-known cat lover, Christine Grahame has long taken an active interest in dog welfare issues. It is clear from various recent debates held in the Parliament that there are a number of important issues relating to dog welfare and the responsible ownership of dogs in Scotland, and I thank the many organisations, including the Scottish Kennel Club, Dogs Trust and OneKind, that have provided briefings for us.
As we have heard, the use of electric collars on cats and dogs has been controversial for some time now. Indeed, the Scottish Government consulted on their use as far back as 2007, although at that time it did not recommend a ban. More recently, as has been mentioned, DEFRA has conducted research into the effects of shock collars. Although the research did not reveal any evidence that electric collars caused dogs long-term harm when used appropriately, it highlighted a number of issues about the manufacture and regulation of collars that need to be addressed to ensure a high standard and proper use.
The DEFRA report highlighted that the use of e-collars
“can lead to a negative impact on welfare, at least in a proportion of animals trained using this technique.”
It also found that a large number of owners who used the devices did so without adhering to the accompanying instruction manuals. It is my understanding that, since the publication of the study, DEFRA has started work with the Electronic Collar Manufacturers Association on guidance for dog owners and trainers on proper use of the collars, and it is also working with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on a manufacturers charter to ensure that the devices are made to high welfare standards.
As a dog owner, I have no experience of training collars; in fact, I have never considered using them. I note that a study undertaken by the University of Lincoln that involved the ECMA found that they were no more effective than other methods of training, such as giving rewards. Of course I understand the concerns that have been expressed by many animal welfare charities that electric shock collars might fail to address underlying behavioural problems or, indeed, might cause further behavioural complications in dogs, and I emphasise the advice that anyone considering their use should seek professional advice—for example, from their vet—beforehand.
It is up to individual dog owners to ensure that pinch, prong or shock collars are used appropriately, and anyone who uses them to inflict unnecessary suffering can be prosecuted under animal welfare laws. However, it is a controversial issue. For example, I know a number of very responsible dog owners who have used electric dog collars for many years and have found no problems with them. To an extent, I feel that the jury is still out on the issue, but I hope that the Scottish Government will keep a watching brief on emerging research and experience in other countries and consider further action if it seems appropriate.
As I have said, a significant number of dog welfare and ownership issues have recently been raised in Parliament, and I was pleased that the Scottish Government agreed to my request for a consultation on the compulsory microchipping of dogs in Scotland and other relevant matters. That consultation, which took place following an excellent and well-attended summit meeting early last year, resulted in one of the largest responses to any Scottish Government consultation, which clearly demonstrated a high level of public concern. A report on the analysis of the responses was published in October, but I am disappointed by the lack of progress that has been made since then on taking forward further measures to promote responsible dog ownership in Scotland. I know that many organisations and constituents also want action on issues ranging from dog welfare to the indiscriminate breeding of dogs in socially rented properties and the sale of puppies via the internet, and the issue of electric dog collars could be considered in that context.
It would be helpful if, in responding to the debate, the minister outlined the Scottish Government’s assessment of the consultation on promoting responsible dog ownership in Scotland and its plans to address the many issues of concern to dog lovers, given that no mention was made of any such plans in the Scottish Government’s programme for government, which was announced recently by the new First Minister.
12:54
I, too, thank Christine Grahame for bringing the debate to the chamber.
Nanette Milne referred to the appropriate use of electronic dog collars, but in my opinion there is no such thing. I know that the jury is out on electronic dog collars, but as far as I am concerned any infliction of pain on an animal is abhorrent and should never happen. There is no need for it to happen: regardless of a dog’s behaviour, there are many other methods of trying to ensure that dogs respond positively to their owners’ wishes.
I have been very fortunate: I have had six guide dogs. Guide dogs are generally well trained before guide dog owners such as me take responsibility for them. However, we must keep up training and positive reinforcement, which is generally done through reward but can also be done by good voice management or just a cuddle, a pat or the occasional dog biscuit. That is the sort of behaviour that we would all expect of responsible dog owners.
Like Kenny Gibson and others, I have spoken to the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and Environment about microchipping. I feel that he is sympathetic to that, but we need action rather than sympathy. We should have no half-measures: there should be a complete ban on the use of electronic dog collars—there is no need for them.
Inflicting pain as part of any kind of control to try to change behaviour is not right. We know that through our children, because we think it abhorrent to smack a child or use corporal punishment, which is banned in schools. I am not trying to draw a parallel between dogs and children, but dogs respond positively to good, positive reward. I have never had to use any negative control over any dog that I have owned, partly because they are well trained and partly because I reinforce their positive behaviour. My safety when I am out with my guide dog is my priority. If I neglect to give the dog positive reinforcement and reward, I am impairing my own safety.
I remember making a training video many years ago to show how a deafblind person could be trained to use an assistance dog. The police were called because the person in the video who was giving the dog positive reinforcement at the edge of a kerb by patting it on the chest was thought by a member of the public to be hitting the dog.
I believe that out in the wider community, the public respond to poor dog control or poor ownership of any pet. The public support a ban on electronic dog collars and I, too, support a ban. However, I am not convinced that we need to go down the route taken by the Welsh Assembly and have the penalties that it has in its legislation, because any penalties need to be appropriate. If we are going to ban the collars, they will need to go, but my problem with the penalties is how that aspect would be policed or monitored.
I know that the Presiding Officer does not like stunts in the chamber, but this is not a stunt—it is a positive reward: Mr Q is going to get a treat. [Applause.]
Thank you.
12:58
I congratulate Christine Grahame on securing the debate, which is on an extremely important animal welfare concern. I add my congratulations to those of other members to the Welsh Assembly on its action to ban the use of electric collars for cats and dogs. It is leading the way in the United Kingdom.
As Christine Grahame pointed out, electric shock collars are already banned in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Germany, Switzerland, Slovenia and many Australian states. It will come as no surprise to hear that most animal welfare organisations support a ban, including the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Scottish Kennel Club, the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association and Dogs Trust.
The public, too, are behind a ban. A Kennel Club survey found that three out of four Scots are against the use of electric collars, and the same proportion support a Scottish Government ban on their use. I believe that the time is right for the Scottish Government to follow in Wales’s footsteps, listen to the concerns of animal welfare organisations and respond to the public demand to take action to ban these cruel and unacceptable devices in Scotland.
Across the United Kingdom, an estimated 500,000 dog owners use inhumane collars, which can deliver an electric shock to their pets that lasts as long as 30 seconds. Christine Grahame has invited MSPs and members of the press who want to experience the pain for themselves to pop along to committee room 1 after the debate and try a collar out.
When I was researching my speech last night, I did a quick search on Amazon that revealed that I could buy a fully rechargeable, wireless, remote-controlled shock collar for less than £25. If I wanted a deluxe model, I could get one for £59.95 that has 50 groups of warning tones and 99 different levels of what is described as “static pulse stimulation correction”. Both models are described as a safe, reliable and humane way to train dogs. The deluxe model even boasts that it takes the human element out of what it describes as “the correction”, letting people control their dog from 1,200m away.
The reality is that electric shock collars are not safe or reliable, and they are certainly not humane. The devices rely on painful punishment, causing dogs to live in constant fear of being electrocuted for normal dog behaviour such as barking. They train dogs to respond out of fear of punishment rather than a natural willingness to obey, and they cause unnecessary suffering. All the evidence suggests that dogs that wear shock collars can suffer from physical pain, injury and psychological distress, resulting in severe anxiety, emotional harm and displaced aggression.
Animals’ pain thresholds vary, and what is a mild shock to one dog might be a severe shock to another. Scientists at the Universities of Bristol and Lincoln and the Food and Environment Research Agency concluded that the use of electric shock collars
“can lead to a negative impact on welfare, at least in a proportion of animals trained using this technique”.
They found that many owners use the devices without reading or following the instructions and that many are totally unaware of the high levels of pain that they are causing their dog. A follow-up study by the University of Lincoln team, in conjunction with the Electronic Collar Manufacturers Association, found that the devices are no more effective than other methods of training dogs, such as rewarding good behaviour, as Dennis Robertson demonstrated.
The Association of Pet Behaviour Counsellors advises that the use of devices that rely on pain or discomfort to control behaviour is inappropriate and that they
“have the potential to seriously compromise the welfare of dogs, and ruin their relationship with owners”.
All the evidence shows that electric collars are not only both inhumane and unacceptable but counterproductive and that they undermine the relationship between owners and their pets.
I hope that the minister will listen to the genuine concerns that have been expressed across the chamber today. We need a lot more than guidance; we need concrete action to protect Scotland’s dogs. We need a ban in Scotland on the sale, use, distribution and possession of these cruel, harmful, inhumane and, above all, totally unnecessary electric shock collars.
13:02
I am very grateful to Christine Grahame for bringing the debate to the chamber. As deputy convener of the cross-party group on animal welfare, I have enjoyed working with parliamentary colleagues, member organisations and individuals on a variety of issues, and I am really pleased that this important issue is being discussed in the chamber. I support a complete ban on electric collars and I thank all those who are involved in campaigning on the issue: the Kennel Club, Dogs Trust, OneKind and many other organisations and individuals.
Animal welfare greatly concerns many people in this country. I had the pleasure and privilege of growing up alongside a variety of rescue cats and dogs and I take their physiological and psychological welfare very seriously. There is a very large body of evidence that highlights the detrimental impact of electric shock collars on dog and cat welfare. We really need to follow the example that the Welsh Government has set, and do so as quickly as possible.
The issue has been raised in Westminster, too. An early day motion in 2013 pointed out that DEFRA-funded research showed that electric shock collars on dogs not only
“caused negative behavioural and physiological changes in a portion of dogs,”
but
“were not more effective than positive reinforcement methods which is the main argument for their use”.
Why on earth do we persist? Surely it is more effective and humane to build a relationship of mutual trust and liking, which can be done by positive, reward-based training, as we have heard.
We can ask, as Conservative MP Matthew Oxford did, why DEFRA continues to ignore its research, but in the Scottish Parliament we do not have to continue to go along with that. We can do something different: we can put into legislation our commitment to animal welfare.
In recent months, we have been debating the kind of Scotland that we want to be. I think that we want to be the kind of Scotland that puts animal welfare at the top of the agenda. Responsible dog ownership will never include the use of shock collars, in which the presence of the owner announces the reception of a shock and of pain. What sort of relationship is that? We need to change the law. We cannot simply ignore the fact that dogs are being subjected to short and sharp, or prolonged, electric shocks to correct what some people might see as undesirable behaviours. Elaine Murray pointed out that some of those undesirable behaviours, such as barking, are perfectly natural. I would suggest that anyone considering using a collar should educate themselves first.
The briefings that we have received today say it all. The Kennel Club tells us that
“Unwanted behaviour in dogs is best resolved by positive training methods”
and that
“the Welsh Assembly agreed that there was enough evidence to prove that banning the devices would improve animal welfare.”
If that is the case in the Welsh Assembly, I would like to understand what is different here.
The studies that have taken place highlight the physiological and psychological effects and the impact on learning, and none is positive. It is time that we thought about the message that we want to give in Scotland. It is fair to say that colleagues have outlined the many issues surrounding the collars. OneKind highlights the fact that an electric collar is a tool with the potential to cause an animal significant pain and distress, and it is available without any follow-up control whatever.
I would like us to bear in mind the words of Mahatma Gandhi who said that
“the greatness of a nation ... can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
I want to live in a Scotland in which unnecessary animal cruelty is intolerable and unacceptable.
13:07
I thank Christine Grahame for securing the debate and allowing me to clarify the Scottish Government’s position on the use of electronic training aids on dogs in Scotland.
I thank also all of those members who have spoken in the debate for their thoughtful and passionate contributions, to which I have listened carefully, and the various animal welfare organisations, such as the Scottish Kennel Club, Dogs Trust and OneKind, for their helpful and comprehensive briefings.
As members are aware, in 2007 the Scottish Government conducted a public consultation on the use, sale, distribution and possession of electronic training aids. The results of that consultation showed that this is a sensitive and controversial issue, with some animal welfare organisations being strongly opposed to the use of those aids and other organisations being strongly in favour of them.
The arguments against the use of electronic training aids are based on the fact that the devices can cause pain and distress; that, as we have heard, the devices fail to address underlying behavioural problems and leave the root cause of some problems, such as barking, suppressed; and that the devices can malfunction or can be used irresponsibly or in an abusive way.
I am wondering which animal welfare organisations are in favour of retaining electronic shock collars.
I will come on to discuss the arguments in favour of electronic training aids and the arguments against them. I know that a number of organisations are very much against their use.
Arguments in favour of the use of those aids are that much of the research has used a type of collar that is no longer in production; that modern devices use a lower voltage and can produce a mild tingle or a warning noise; that collars can be fitted with an automatic “time-out” so that the shock or pulse does not continue; and that, in some cases, training aids have been used to stop dogs worrying sheep, saving those dogs from having to be put down.
The responses to our consultation indicated that arguments for and against the use of the training aids were finely balanced with anecdotal evidence on both sides.
If we are talking about dogs worrying sheep, surely it is the dog owner’s responsibility to ensure that their dog is on a lead. A shock collar is not required.
My colleague makes a very good point, which I accept.
As Christine Grahame points out, the Welsh Assembly banned the use of electronic training aids in Wales under the Animal Welfare (Electronic Collars) (Wales) Regulations 2010. The legislation, which came into force in March 2010, followed a review of the existing science on the topic conducted by the University of Bristol in 2006, three consultations and discussions with the European Commission. The legislation was unsuccessfully challenged by the electronic collar industry in a judicial review.
As members have highlighted, DEFRA commissioned further research from the universities of Lincoln and Bristol in the form of project AW1402 “Studies to assess the effect of pet training aids, specifically remote static pulse systems, on the welfare of domestic dogs” and the add-on project, AW1402a, which was a “field study of dogs in training”.
The welfare experts have been advising the Scottish Government and DEFRA, which have considered the research in full detail and context. They confirm that, although the research project AW1402a found some behavioural signs associated with stress during the training of dogs with electronic collars, the full range of other behavioural and physiological monitoring that was done did not at that point show significant differences compared with dogs trained without electronic collars. That part of the project also did not provide evidence of long-term adverse effects in dogs trained with electronic collars in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions.
The Government keeps returning to usage in reference to the manufacturers’ instructions. I am opposed to the collars in principle, but even if one were to accept that they should be used appropriately, who is monitoring and policing their use? Who is going into someone’s house to check whether they are using a collar occasionally for training purposes or using a collar perpetually or at a high voltage? As Cara Hilton said, the collars come with different voltage ranges. Their use cannot be policed. That is the issue.
I thank Christine Grahame for that point, which I will take on board.
I am conscious of time, so I will move on. A report from the Companion Animal Welfare Council entitled “The Use of Electric Pulse Training Aids (EPTAs) in Companion Animals” was prepared and published in June 2012. That consisted of a systematic review of peer reviewed scientific publications. The report made some useful recommendations on the design and use of electronic aids that can be considered. The Scottish Government supports DEFRA’s work to take forward some of the recommendations.
The Scottish Government and DEFRA concluded that a ban on electronic training aids cannot be justified on welfare grounds at this time but that improved guidance for owners and trainers is the appropriate way forward.
We fully support DEFRA’s work with the Electronic Collar Manufacturers Association to draw up guidance for dog owners and trainers advising how to use e-collars properly. We also support DEFRA’s work with the UK Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to develop a manufacturers’ charter to ensure that any e-collars on sale are made to high standards. I have listened carefully to the issues raised, and I emphasise that we will be keeping a close eye on the uptake and the effectiveness of the guidance once it is published. We are also watching what is happening in other countries.
Having listened carefully, I want to give some reassurance to members that the Government takes animal welfare seriously. As a new minister, I am sympathetic and open to us having further discussions on the issue. Today, I have asked my officials to arrange a meeting for Christine Grahame, animal welfare organisations and ministers to discuss what further action we can take on this important issue.
13:14 Meeting suspended.Previous
First Minister’s Question TimeNext
Oil and Gas