Hansard

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