Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 06 May 2014
06 May 2014 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Responsible Dog Ownership
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 to inform me.
As those charities do, I support the motion, which calls for compulsory microchipping of dogs but opposes the call for muzzling of all dogs in public. Microchipping is the responsible thing to do, as the Dogs Trust says. I will not repeat all the reasons in favour of it that other members have mentioned, but it is clear that it would help to enforce owners’ responsibilities under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. However, I agree with members who said that it would certainly not solve all the problems with dog mauling.
I oppose the compulsory muzzling of dogs because it would punish dogs that are no threat to anyone, and I agree with Alex Fergusson that it would be cruel. It would also not be justified because it would not have prevented some of the worst cases of dog mauling, which have occurred on private property, as Christine Grahame said.
My dog is a Cavalier King Charles spaniel, which is one of the most gentle and docile breeds of dog in existence; that is why I got it. I had no experience of owning a dog when I bought one for my children. I did not come from a family of dog owners, so I felt that I should get a dog that would not, if I did not get it quite right, cause problems for anyone else. We should remember that dogs and humans have been companions for thousands of years, and that that relationship has been overwhelmingly positive.
Just the other week, I was in this chamber with two hearing dogs from Action on Hearing Loss. We know that, through the work that hearing dogs and dogs for the blind and people with other conditions do, they make an extremely positive contribution to society. Even for people who do not have disabilities, dogs can provide companionship and ease loneliness, and there is considerable academic and scientific evidence that dogs reduce stress and have health benefits for their owners.
I do not want to dismiss the issue of dog attacks, because it is very serious and should not be trivialised, but it is difficult to legislate for. I remember reporting on the last death in Scotland in 1989 when a young girl was tragically killed by Rottweilers. I was struck by the fact that the UK legislation after that attack and a spate of other attacks—the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991—did not include Rottweilers. I am very aware that it is controversial to talk about “dangerous” breeds, and that it is also true that it is the owner and not the dog who is most often at fault. I also praise schemes such as the prison scheme that Kenneth Gibson highlighted. However, the fact is that some breeds of dog are more dangerous than others.
When I was researching the subject, I found an American study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which found that pit bull terriers and Rottweilers accounted for 67 per cent of the deaths over the 10-year period of the study. We cannot argue with such statistics.
Although the previous licensing system was not ideal, the Government should consider a licensing system that would encourage responsible dog ownership. I was struck by what Elaine Murray said about controlling her dogs and warning children who want to clap them. I read about a little girl who was mauled by a dog. She had asked whether she could clap it and the owner said yes, but they had only had the dog for two days and did not know about its background and history, and the little girl received severe facial injuries. In particular cases and with particular breeds, we need to consider enforcing responsibilities on owners.
Some members have mentioned that the current legislation is not being enforced. In the consultation process, the statistics bear that out. For example, in the years that have been studied, in Glasgow—our biggest city and one that has a problem with dogs in certain areas—only two dog control orders were issued. Aberdeen City Council carried out 317 investigations of dogs in one year, but issued just four dog control notices. We have legislation in place, but it is not being enforced as we all wish it to be enforced.
17:43
As those charities do, I support the motion, which calls for compulsory microchipping of dogs but opposes the call for muzzling of all dogs in public. Microchipping is the responsible thing to do, as the Dogs Trust says. I will not repeat all the reasons in favour of it that other members have mentioned, but it is clear that it would help to enforce owners’ responsibilities under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. However, I agree with members who said that it would certainly not solve all the problems with dog mauling.
I oppose the compulsory muzzling of dogs because it would punish dogs that are no threat to anyone, and I agree with Alex Fergusson that it would be cruel. It would also not be justified because it would not have prevented some of the worst cases of dog mauling, which have occurred on private property, as Christine Grahame said.
My dog is a Cavalier King Charles spaniel, which is one of the most gentle and docile breeds of dog in existence; that is why I got it. I had no experience of owning a dog when I bought one for my children. I did not come from a family of dog owners, so I felt that I should get a dog that would not, if I did not get it quite right, cause problems for anyone else. We should remember that dogs and humans have been companions for thousands of years, and that that relationship has been overwhelmingly positive.
Just the other week, I was in this chamber with two hearing dogs from Action on Hearing Loss. We know that, through the work that hearing dogs and dogs for the blind and people with other conditions do, they make an extremely positive contribution to society. Even for people who do not have disabilities, dogs can provide companionship and ease loneliness, and there is considerable academic and scientific evidence that dogs reduce stress and have health benefits for their owners.
I do not want to dismiss the issue of dog attacks, because it is very serious and should not be trivialised, but it is difficult to legislate for. I remember reporting on the last death in Scotland in 1989 when a young girl was tragically killed by Rottweilers. I was struck by the fact that the UK legislation after that attack and a spate of other attacks—the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991—did not include Rottweilers. I am very aware that it is controversial to talk about “dangerous” breeds, and that it is also true that it is the owner and not the dog who is most often at fault. I also praise schemes such as the prison scheme that Kenneth Gibson highlighted. However, the fact is that some breeds of dog are more dangerous than others.
When I was researching the subject, I found an American study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which found that pit bull terriers and Rottweilers accounted for 67 per cent of the deaths over the 10-year period of the study. We cannot argue with such statistics.
Although the previous licensing system was not ideal, the Government should consider a licensing system that would encourage responsible dog ownership. I was struck by what Elaine Murray said about controlling her dogs and warning children who want to clap them. I read about a little girl who was mauled by a dog. She had asked whether she could clap it and the owner said yes, but they had only had the dog for two days and did not know about its background and history, and the little girl received severe facial injuries. In particular cases and with particular breeds, we need to consider enforcing responsibilities on owners.
Some members have mentioned that the current legislation is not being enforced. In the consultation process, the statistics bear that out. For example, in the years that have been studied, in Glasgow—our biggest city and one that has a problem with dogs in certain areas—only two dog control orders were issued. Aberdeen City Council carried out 317 investigations of dogs in one year, but issued just four dog control notices. We have legislation in place, but it is not being enforced as we all wish it to be enforced.
17:43
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...