I ask Parliament’s guests who are leaving the gallery to note that Parliament is in session and to leave as quickly and quietly as possible, please.
The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-09418, in the name of Christine Grahame, on animal rights and human responsibilities. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament considers that companion animals, farmed animals and wild creatures are sentient beings whose contribution to communities and the environment should be recognised and celebrated; acknowledges, in particular, the positive role of pets in the lives of children and adults throughout Scotland, including in Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale, and the comfort and assistance that they provide for many people who have difficulty with vision, hearing, mobility or socialising, and affirms that animals need and deserve the best possible welfare standards appropriate for their species whenever they are bred, reared, traded or kept.
12:38
After all the hubris of a few minutes ago, I am delighted to say that the debate will—I hope—be consensual and friendly across the chamber. There will be no biting, clawing or scratching.
I thank all the members who have signed my motion, stayed for the debate, visited the displays in Parliament this week to celebrate animals, and signed the pledge in support of Scotland’s animals. I particularly thank those who sent in photos, including our magnificent Jackie Baillie and Smudge, and Paul Martin, who has a lovely, cuddly white dog, which was not at all what I expected. The line that owners look like their dugs or that dugs look like their owners does not always pertain.
I thank all the members of the cross-party group on animal welfare, some of whom are in the gallery—they are just managing to get in. Last but not least, I mention the working dogs that are joining us in the gallery. Sometimes, I speak to one man and his dug. Today, I might, with others, speak to four dugs. Indeed, I have it on the authority of the other Deputy Presiding Officer, Mr Scott, that Mr Q is my number 1 fan and stands to attention when I speak. That could be misread, but I am taking it as respect.
My motion is first and foremost a recognition that all animals are sentient beings. We are just a wee bit higher up the evolutionary scale than them; sometimes, we even act as though we are. Over the years, we have tamed animals, brought them to our fire for companionship and as guardians, and eaten and abused them. We can still do all three.
Those of us who have pets know that our commitment reaches way beyond the notion of a cuddly puppy or cute kitten. For me, the bird should not be caged, and the rabbit needs a life beyond a hutch. When we acquire or buy a pet, we must do so with informed responsibility and commitment at the forefront of our minds. A pet should be bought not just because it is doe-eyed and cutesy, but for the right reasons and by the right person, who will give it the right environment. It should not be a status symbol or a frivolous buy.
We must accept that we cannot just swan off on holiday for the weekend, as we have to make provision for the care of our companion. There are inevitably vet bills—ching, ching—that run into hundreds of pounds, or insurance costs. A dog needs and will appreciate proper training and exercise, and a cat flap—it is practical for me, although not for my own use, of course—is mandatory.
I cannot have a dog because of my lifestyle, so I have had a sequence of cats: life in the wild of the garden, with the battle scars from territorial scraps with the black feline next door, and the odd pile of bird and mouse remains on the rug. Does Ms Baillie recognise that?
Yes, I do.
That is all part of animals living the life that is intended for them. People must learn to live with animals’ lifestyle—they need to get a lot of carpet cleaner, and to learn to rescue terrified birds from window ledges and to capture the odd terrified mouse and release it into the garden. That is a technique that I have mastered, and which I am happy to teach colleagues, if they require a lesson.
It is all to do with quality of life. The better the animals’ quality of life, the better we will feel, and we learn as we go. I know, as the saying goes, that while dogs have masters, cats have staff. No does not mean no, and any competent cat will be on your knee being absentmindedly stroked before you know it.
Good quality of life must extend to the animals that we breed to eat. Factories are for making things; they are not, and never will be, farms. If and when we kill to eat, it must be done as humanely as possible. As for circuses, all acrobatics and clowning should be from the human species.
People should never, ever buy their pet from the back of a car, even if their heartstrings are being tugged to breaking point. They should report that to the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals or some other welfare organisation. It is simply wrong, and if they buy a pet in that way they may inadvertently be supporting the hideous practice of puppy farming.
People should not buy pets online. It is not the same as ordering next week’s groceries or accessories for a new outfit. Animals are not things.
We need to update the legislation on sale of pets. The Pet Animals Act dates back to 1951. Crumbs! It is almost as old as me and definitely needs a facelift: the act, that is—not me.
We can enjoy our pets and our animal world, but we must do them the justice that they deserve. When we see injustice and ignorance in relation to animals, we should say or do something, even if only because we have more in common with them than we know.
We come to the open debate. I call Alex Fergusson, and note that he has to leave the chamber early.
12:44
Thank you, Presiding Officer, for your indulgence in allowing me to leave the chamber early. I mean no offence in doing so.
I congratulate Christine Grahame on bringing the debate to the chamber. I like the fact that the motion begins by recognising and celebrating the contribution that animals bring to our world, whether they are pets or farmed or wild animals. If members think that the motion is a little overstated, they should try to imagine a world without animals. It is not a pleasant thought, is it?
The animal kingdom has every bit as much a right to inhabit this planet as we do. We share the planet. We have an added responsibility, which, as the motion points out, is to ensure that our animals enjoy the “best possible welfare standards” that we can provide.
I will highlight two aspects of animal rights and human responsibilities. The first was brought to my attention by a constituent who is profoundly deaf and whose quality of life has for many years been immeasurably improved by the companionship and expertise of a hearing dog. The issue that he raised with me is quite simply one of discrimination. We all know about guide dogs for the blind. How could we not, with the wonderful and aforementioned Mr Q in our midst these days? We all know that exceptions are rightly made for guide dogs in all areas of life from which pet dogs are normally excluded.
Sadly, nothing like the same awareness appears to exist when it comes to hearing dogs, although the same legislation and regulations apply to them, I understand. My constituent has been refused entry to a number of establishments over the years, and he now knows of many other people who have had similar experiences. He has waged a lengthy and commendable letter-writing campaign to have the legislation strengthened, although I cannot help but feel that it is we who need education about using the existing legislation properly before we resort to producing new legislation. It cannot be too difficult to ensure that our hotels, restaurants, cafes and other similar establishments are made aware of the need to treat hearing dogs with the same degree of respect as is shown to guide dogs. I hope that debates such as this will help to initiate and kick-start that educative process.
The second issue has been raised with us by the NFU Scotland, and is highly relevant to the human responsibilities part of the motion. As the NFUS briefing succinctly puts it, it is essential that we ensure that companion animals and farm animals can co-exist in the same environment without fear, distress or danger to each other. To achieve that aim, which is surely an entirely reasonable one, the human responsibilities part of the equation needs to be exercised to the full.
We read too often about incidents of sheep worrying and cattle worrying, but that can be addressed by owners exercising proper control over their dogs—if only they could be persuaded to exercise that control.
The second aspect of the NFUS’s concern is even more serious. We now live in a world where it is almost universally accepted that dog owners and walkers pick up after their dogs in our towns, cities and villages. I, for one, have been hugely impressed by the degree to which most people accept that as normal and sensible practice. That makes it all the more extraordinary that people seem to be reluctant to take that same commitment with them when they take their animals into the countryside. In an urban setting, dog mess is antisocial and unpleasant. In a farm environment, it is also antisocial and unpleasant, but it is dangerous, too. Dog mess can and does lead to disease in livestock, and can result in abortion in cattle and death in sheep. I commend the NFUS for its plans for a national campaign to promote an increased sense of responsibility among dog owners in respect of farm animals. I hope that Parliament will give that campaign its full support.
It is a wonderful thing that people are able to explore our countryside at will, but the right that Parliament conferred on them was not a right to roam; it was purposefully called a “right of responsible access”. All we need is people taking a little more responsibility.
12:48
I thought that the heading for the motion was particularly good, as it includes both rights and responsibilities. Both human beings and animals have rights but, when it comes to responsibilities, it has to be the human beings who shoulder most of them.
I am very fond of animals, especially dogs. However, our first household pet was a budgie. I still remember when, as a youngster at primary school, I came downstairs one morning, took the cover off and found him sadly deceased on the floor of his cage.
We then had a couple of beagles in succession, which were highly disobedient. Most recently, my mother had a superb collie cross, which was amazingly obedient. Sadly, it died a week past Monday, aged 15. I used to walk the dog after lunch over at my mother’s every Sunday, so it was a bit strange going there last Sunday, as there was no dog to walk.
It is clear that many of us care very much for our pets, but sometimes that can seem to go just a little bit too far. When a pet gets medical treatment faster than a human being does, or when people leave their large estates entirely to animal charities and leave nothing at all to people, I get a little bit uneasy. We need to strike a balance in all that.
There are many forms of cruelty to dogs and other animals. I thought it would be worth my while to mention some of them today. There are the obvious forms, such as setting snares, chasing deer around fields with cars and badger baiting. As Alex Fergusson said, the NFUS briefing makes many valid points about irresponsible dog owners and about livestock being distressed, hurt or killed by dogs.
Air guns are also an issue, especially with regard to the shooting of cats. If this Parliament is to control licensing of air guns, I hope that that is something that we can clamp down on, as has been suggested by the League Against Cruel Sports.
There is also unnecessary testing of products on animals. I encourage colleagues to check the cleaning products that they use in their offices. The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection does good work in that regard; the leaping bunny symbol indicates when products are cruelty free. Co-op stores are particularly good at stocking such products, which are often its own-brand products.
My brother is a vet in Wales and he tells me that one very common problem that he faces is animals being overfed and overweight. Of course, that can be difficult to tell the owners if they are also overfed and overweight. As with children, sometimes saying no is the most caring response.
The Dogs Trust has one of its two Scottish centres in my constituency, which are well worth visiting if members have not already done so. Last time I visited, the staff told me about the young offender rehabilitation programme in which they are involved. One young guy whom they worked with always had his hood up over his head, which I guess illustrated some of his personal issues. They worked with him and explained that the dogs were frightened by the hood. At first he agreed that he would put the hood down for dogs, but not for people. However, later on he came round to being much more relaxed in general. Perhaps that is just a small indication of the positive impact that animals can have—even on some of the most difficult people.
I do not argue that we should care for animals because we are related to them. I believe that we were created separately and are distinct from each other. However, I do believe that we were given responsibility to look after all the animals of this world, which certainly includes wild animals, as well as domesticated ones.
People are more important than animals, but that does not excuse cruelty. I lived in Nepal for some years, where it was not unusual to see people throwing stones at dogs. One time when I was walking down the street a dog itself was thrown out of a window.
I hope that we, as a society, are moving on from that. Evidence shows that people who are cruel to animals are also cruel to their fellow human beings, so human rights and animal rights are very much connected and I very much support them both.
12:53
I congratulate Christine Grahame on bringing this motion to the chamber and on her organisation, with the Dogs Trust and OneKind, of the displays in Parliament celebrating the contribution of pets to human wellbeing. The rolling exhibition of photographs of staff’s and MSPs’ companion animals has attracted much interest from the users of the building, and it reminds us of all the things that we have in common, despite the fact that we spend so much time in here fighting with each other.
I have had the pleasure of the company of companion animals—a lot of the time it has been more than one—all my life. The first Murray family dog preceded me into the world and was later joined by a succession of hamsters, fish, tortoises—I still feel guilty about the tortoises—stick insects, guinea pigs and rabbits, as my animal-loving parents presented very little resistance to enlarging the pet population of the house. I am, however, sorry to say that my mother drew the line at rats and snakes.
The few short months that I spent without a pet when I started my post-doctoral degree made it clear to me that there was a hole in my life that only an animal could fill. We were joined by my first feline—a tortoiseshell and white kitten called Top Cat who brought home a whole load of mice. She hid corpses under my bed and put them in my sports kit, but eventually walked out on me because I got a new boyfriend whom she did not like. She never came back—I never found out where she went.
My eldest child was named after a delightful little cat who had, sadly, been killed on the road a couple of weeks before my son was born. I must say that the cat’s name was not Tiddles, but Alex. It might have been embarrassing for my son otherwise.
At 18 months, my son advanced my campaign to add a dog to the household by plaintively repeating, “I want a doggy,” until his father gave in. From then on we, too, had a succession of creatures: dogs, cats, gerbils, hamsters, rabbits, guinea pigs, fish, degus and a horse.
Pets contribute to our mental and physical wellbeing. However, other than a feral tom kitten who, when we first lived in Ayr, rightly decided that it might be a smart move to get himself adopted by us, we chose to bring pets into our lives. As Christine Grahame said, we therefore have responsibilities to ensure that the animals have the appropriate environment, exercise, diet and, in many cases, the companionship of others of their own species, as many animals are unhappy otherwise.
Regardless of my fractured pelvis, my daughter’s broken finger and my friend’s fractured vertebra—all attributable to Twix the horse—I am convinced that pets have made, and continue to make, a positive contribution to my family’s health. My children were resilient to viruses and bacteria and lost little time from school. I attribute that to three factors: genetics, breastfeeding and pets. I am sure that exposure to pets’ hair—and worse—helped to prime their immune systems. After all, a little dirt does no harm.
Pets also helped to introduce our children to difficult issues such as death. Somewhere at home I still have a jotter in which, when he was about seven, my son had to write little illustrated stories about what he had done at the weekend. One entry contains a detailed illustration of the death-bed scene of the little feral kitten who had adopted us a few years earlier.
My mother will celebrate her 90th birthday next month and my father is in his late 80s. They insist on looking after our little dogs—Sylvie and Annie, which we bought to celebrate our silver wedding anniversary, which is why they are so named—while we are out at work or away in locations that are not pet-friendly. People at their time of life sometimes feel that they have ceased to have a positive role in their families’ lives, but my parents know that they continue to make an important contribution to our and our dogs’ lives, long after their grandchildren have grown up.
In addition to that, both my parents had serious health issues in their 60s—indeed, my mother was not expected to live after an operation went seriously wrong—but both pulled through. I am certain that that was in part due to a lifetime of taking regular exercise, including daily dog walking. My mother’s consultant actually commented on that. I am sure that dogs helped to save my mother’s life when she was 65.
Despite the vet fees, the broken bones, the hairs on the carpets and the grief that we feel when they finally leave us, pets contribute so much to the lives of their owners that they are indeed well worth today’s motion of celebration. We must take our responsibility for them seriously.
12:57
I congratulate Christine Grahame on securing the debate and on arranging the spectacularly interesting and engaging display that we have in two locations in Holyrood. I am slightly worried that my two cats, Malcolm and Donald, will hold me to account for submitting their photograph without their permission, but I guess that I will just need to live with that.
As he did on many subjects, Winston Churchill had something to say on the subject of animals. He said:
“Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.”
He was a great fan of pigs. Like millions of others, I am a lower form of being, and am at the bottom of the pecking order—certainly in our house.
When Christine Grahame said that we are a wee bit higher up the evolutionary scale, I am not sure that she is correct. The fruit fly has eight chromosomes and man has 46. However, hermit crabs have 254 and the Ophioglossum fern has 768. More fundamentally, the Oxytricha trifallax has 15,600 chromosomes—2,000 copies of each of them in a single cell. Perhaps that animal does not engage with us because it is so intelligent. We will never know—it is not interested in the lower form of being that we are.
The motion talks about farmed animals and wild creatures, but I do not think that anyone has said much about wild creatures so far. Where I live, we have badgers about 400m away. We have roe deer—we once had 20 of them in the garden. We have foxes and weasels—I have seen a weasel drag off a young rabbit about 10 times its size. Of course, we also have those interlopers that the Normans brought about 1,000 years ago: rabbits.
In the country, we also have lots of farmed animals of one sort or another. All those farmed, wild and companion animals occupy important ecological niches and interact with each other.
Alex Fergusson rightly referred to hearing dogs, and we have dogs that help people without sight. We also have dogs that look after people with failing mental faculties and keep them from danger. Animals are a very important part of many people’s lives. The widowed or deserted can have long conversations with their companions, maintaining mental alertness, and the daily walk with a dog maintains physical fitness in many of our older people.
A well-cared-for, well-regarded animal companion who has been trained to understand proper relations with humans—it may be boisterous but may not bite—can gain, just as we do. We protect such animals from hunger, disease, debility and danger. We also have duties to them. We must keep the sheep from the goats—Ezekiel 34:17, in the Bible, makes reference to that practice from many years ago. Specifically, we have a duty to neuter our cats, as our failure to neuter an adequately high proportion of our cats is diluting the stock of Scottish wildcats to the point that there are now fewer pure-bred wildcats left than even the threatened Bengal tiger.
I will close by illustrating one businesslady’s attitude to her animals. Halfway between here and my home in Banffshire is Peggy Scott’s restaurant on the A90. Unless they have talked to the owner, few people will realise that Dawn Scott always names her businesses after her pets. Peggy Scott is actually a wee dug, and she has her own restaurant.
13:02
I congratulate Christine Grahame on lodging the motion. I feel slightly uneasy following a farmer and four members who have massive experience of pets and other animals, as I have never owned a pet and have no background in relation to animals. Nevertheless, I was struck by two phrases in the motion. The first of those is
“the positive role of pets in the lives of children and adults”.
I have seen that in recent years with my grandchildren. The second phrase is
“the best possible welfare standards”.
I have always been concerned about the prevention of animal suffering, and many constituents have written to me about such matters. I will turn to that issue before I talk briefly about the positive role of pets in the lives of adults and children.
The cabinet secretary will know of my constituents’ concerns, as I have written to him about most of those matters. Just in the past few months, they have approached me about puppy farming, the sale of cats online, snares, the use of wild animals in circuses and the use of closed-circuit television cameras in slaughterhouses. That last issue reminds us that, for most people, animals cannot be seen as equivalent to human beings. I respect those who are vegetarians and who do not want to kill animals in any circumstances; nevertheless, most of us accept that we can eat animals. However, cruelty to animals must always be avoided, and we must always ensure that the best possible welfare standards are enforced.
Within the past few days, I have received a letter from the cabinet secretary about puppy farming. The briefing that we received from OneKind asks for a review of pet vending legislation, which seems to be required. OneKind states:
“without a change in legislation this kind of farming, which contradicts all of the guiding principles of good animal welfare, would perhaps continue as a profitable enterprise at the expense of animals’ lives”.
I hope that that will be taken on board.
Other issues are perhaps trickier for the Government to address. The Government cannot make up its mind about the use of wild animals in circuses, but some of my constituents have made up their minds about that and say that a stop should be put to it. Snaring is also controversial. We are one of the few European countries to allow it and I support my constituents who want an end to it. We should also have 24-hour security cameras in abattoirs—I cannot see any argument against that.
The Government has taken action. As we will recall from last week’s members’ business debate on responsible dog ownership, it is proposed that dogs be microchipped. I imagine that that important animal welfare measure for dogs will go ahead. As that debate reminded us, another issue is animals who behave antisocially. We do not need to repeat the arguments, but we must take action where animals are behaving in that way, just as we do with human beings who are behaving similarly.
I have only one minute left in which to mention the positive role of pets in the lives of children and adults. That issue could have been mentioned in yesterday’s members’ business debate on loneliness because, for that debate, I read fairly extensive research showing that adults living alone without a pet were significantly lonelier than those living with one.
I will close by focusing on the impact of pets on children. That has had a profound effect on my attitude towards animals in general and pets in particular because I have seen how my oldest granddaughter loves, cares for and empathises with cats in general and her own cat in particular. That has made me think about the very positive role that animals play in the lives of children. In the main, I am talking about real animals, but there are also animal toys and one cannot avoid the fact that animals are massively important in children’s literature.
Although it is possible to love animals and not human beings, in general, a positive and caring attitude towards animals will correlate with and encourage a positive and caring attitude towards human beings. That is a very important dimension, but we must always remember that animals are different from human beings and we must respect animals for what they are.
13:06
I thank my colleague Christine Grahame for proposing the motion and the other colleagues who have contributed so ably to the debate. I also welcome to the Parliament many members of the cross-party group on animal welfare and, indeed, our four-legged friends Royal, Briar and Keira, who I understand are also in the gallery. Perhaps they will get a personal tour of the Parliament from Mr Q and they can catch up over a bowl of water later on.
Like Christine Grahame, I congratulate everyone who has contributed to the celebrating Scotland’s animals week stalls that are in Parliament this week. If anyone has not yet had a chance to go along, I urge them to do so. Unfortunately, I never got round to submitting a photograph for the stall, but I will certainly update my cats back home that we were paying tribute to them. For the first time in many decades, I remembered Timothy the tortoise, who was my first pet as a child, which brought back memories for me. All the anecdotes and stories that we have heard from various members remind us that it is important, and sometimes humbling, to remember the many benefits that we obtain from our relationship with animals.
Christine Grahame and the cross-party group on animal welfare do sterling work to promote discussion, share information and raise awareness about animal welfare issues, ably supported by OneKind and others.
Although this week’s event is upbeat, as we have heard from members’ speeches, most of the issues that the cross-party group deals with are anything but. Animals are hugely important to Scotland for a range of reasons, and the cross-party group has a critical role in reminding Parliament of our responsibility to ensure that they are properly looked after. For example, Scotland’s animals help to maintain and enhance our world-famous landscape, to which Stewart Stevenson and others referred. Carefully managed grazing by cattle and sheep helps to maintain the vast upland environment and to ensure a rich diversity of plants and wildlife.
Wild animals also play a part in shaping the landscape. For example, beavers, recently the subject of a successful reintroduction trial, can have beneficial effects by creating wetlands, increasing biodiversity and even minimising floods.
When managed responsibly, Scotland’s animals contribute to a healthy tourism industry, a world-renowned livestock industry, and a beautiful country for the people of Scotland to live and work in, too.
As we have heard, many people benefit from animals on a much more personal level, not least the many pet owners that derive companionship and, in some cases, purpose from their animals. There is growing evidence that animals have a therapeutic benefit for people’s physical and mental wellbeing, even helping people with psychiatric illnesses. The benefits that companionship can bring to wellbeing were reflected in Elaine Murray’s and many other members’ speeches. More work is needed to improve our knowledge of that effect. However, from studies to date, it appears that, when employed in the correct manner and targeted at the appropriate user group, animals can contribute significantly to our wellbeing and quality of life.
The national charity Pets As Therapy already provides therapeutic visits from volunteers with their pet dogs and cats to places such as hospitals, hospices, nursing and care homes and special needs schools. We should also pay tribute to the thousands of volunteers who help animal welfare charities.
It would be helpful to add to the catalogue of helpful animals those in prisons. The Dogs Trust has rescued Staffordshire terriers, which get an undeserved bad reputation, and young men in Polmont prison write diaries—young men who would not bother to write about anything else—and care for them until they have found new homes.
That is a good example. In the UK, there are more than 5,000 active Pets As Therapy dogs and a smaller number of cats working to bring the opportunity to stroke, hold and talk to a calm and friendly animal to thousands of people who are in need of the emotional lift that sometimes only animal companionship can bring.
There is, of course, no doubt of the huge benefit of guide dogs to their 520 blind or partially sighted owners in Scotland or, indeed, of hearing dogs for the deaf. I think that Alex Fergusson mentioned hearing dogs. The service that those dogs provide is impressive and crucial to many people’s lives. However, perhaps even more remarkable is a recent small trial in Scotland of dogs as helpers to dementia patients that Alzheimer Scotland and others ran. The dogs helped with daily routine, reminded people to take medicines, improved owners’ confidence, helped them to socialise and offered reassurance in unfamiliar environments.
The pilot was particularly successful and a national programme of matching of dogs to people with dementia is being rolled out across the country, which is good news indeed.
Individual responsibility is important in the debate. It is important for the welfare of all the animals that provide all those benefits to us. Animal welfare is immensely important to the people of Scotland and the Scottish Government takes it very seriously.
The main legal provision for animal welfare in Scotland lies in the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, which covers the welfare of all protected animals kept by people. As well as making the ill treatment of animals an offence, the act places a clear duty of care on anyone who is responsible for an animal.
There is also, of course, more specific legislation on a range of areas: the breeding of dogs, the sale of pets, animal boarding, performing animals, zoo animals, and farm animals and their humane slaughter. Some of that legislation is relatively new. For example, the Welfare of Animals at Time of Killing (Scotland) Regulations 2012 are the first, and currently only, legislation in the UK that implements the European Union rules on welfare at killing that came into force on 1 January 2013.
We are taking that issue, which members mentioned, seriously. It is an emotive topic that many would rather not think about. However, it is important and, indeed, inevitable that, with an outstanding reputation for producing high-quality meat from livestock with an excellent reputation for high health and welfare, Scotland takes such debates seriously. That legislation also maintains Scotland’s pre-existing higher welfare at slaughter standards. We should bear in mind the fact that that we benefit from those higher standards, which help Scotland to be at the forefront of animal welfare.
However, I recognise that, as some members mentioned, animal welfare legislation needs updated in some areas. I am acutely aware that the Pet Animals Act 1951, to which Christine Grahame and other members referred, does not include provisions for modern welfare issues such as internet sales or exotic pets. I am also aware that we currently have welfare legislation for the breeding of dogs only, which leaves the breeding of other pet animals unregulated.
My officials met representatives of the pet industry in recent months to gather initial views on those welfare issues and how they can be tackled. I urge OneKind and parliamentary colleagues to note that we are already working on an initial review of the issues and options relating to pet animals. We will be discussing the matter further in the weeks and months ahead.
Of course, other issues have just been consulted on, such as responsible dog ownership—to which Malcolm Chisholm and others referred—and microchipping. There have been 2,500 responses to that consultation. That is a huge number and it illustrates the strength of feeling over animal welfare issues and responsible dog ownership in this country.
There are a whole lot of issues to take forward. We must also recognise the role that animal welfare charities play in education. For example, the Scottish SPCA provides an excellent free prevention through education programme to Scotland’s children, encouraging them to treat animals with compassion and respect.
In Scotland, we are fortunate that we have so many people who are willing to donate time and money to help to improve animal welfare. We should all be proud to live in such a caring country. Animals are of course sentient beings, as was discussed, and they should be given respect, care and compassion. We cannot ignore their huge contribution to people and the environment and it is right for that to be celebrated.
I congratulate Christine Grahame again on lodging her motion and I congratulate everyone who has put in efforts to ensure that we do that in the Parliament this week. I urge everyone to continue to work together to ensure that we have the best possible animal welfare standards in Scotland.
That concludes Christine Grahame’s debate on animal rights and human responsibilities.
13:15 Meeting suspended.Previous
Point of Order