Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 06 May 2014
06 May 2014 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Responsible Dog Ownership
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 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
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (John Scott)
Con
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 withou...
Kenneth Gibson (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
SNP
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...
Claire Baker (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Lab
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...
Christine Grahame (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
SNP
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 t...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
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
Alex Fergusson (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Con
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 de...
Malcolm Chisholm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Lab
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 B...
Christine Grahame
SNP
Will Malcolm Chisholm take an intervention?
Malcolm Chisholm
Lab
I do not think that I have time; I am in my last minute.
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
You can take back the time.
Christine Grahame
SNP
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...
Malcolm Chisholm
Lab
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...
Graeme Dey (Angus South) (SNP)
SNP
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 ado...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
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.Mo...
Elaine Murray (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Lab
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...
Joan McAlpine (South Scotland) (SNP)
SNP
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 ...
Jean Urquhart (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Ind
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 i...
Dennis Robertson (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
SNP
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...
Paul Martin (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
Lab
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...
The Minister for Environment and Climate Change (Paul Wheelhouse)
SNP
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 proba...