Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Meeting of the Parliament 06 May 2014

06 May 2014 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament

Item of business

Responsible Dog Ownership

Grahame, Christine SNP Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale Watch on SPTV

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.”