Hansard

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 probably the first time that members have not called for Kenneth Gibson to be muzzled—given the subject, I thought that that was likely to happen, but it did not. In fact, Alex Fergusson praised Kenneth Gibson very highly; I imagine that he will probably get a rap over the knuckles from the whips when he gets back.

As is the case in many areas, education is a critical part of the process. Members might be aware that the Scottish Government published its “Code of Practice for the Welfare of Dogs” in 2010. Although it provides an important reference source for all dog owners, I whole-heartedly support the proposal to commend the work of the Dogs Trust and other animal welfare organisations. A number of members have mentioned the Dogs Trust, and I commend it for the support that it has provided to members for this evening’s debate and for its contribution to the wider debate.

We have many such organisations in Scotland, and they perform a vital role in helping animals in need, in spreading important messages about our responsibilities as pet owners and in helping to inform developing policies on the way forward.

Members might be aware that the Scottish SPCA is celebrating 175 years of rescuing and rehoming animals, including a significant number of dogs. The organisation also provides an exemplary free educational service to Scotland’s children through its prevention through education programme, which encourages our children to treat animals with compassion and respect.

I know that my colleague Richard Lochhead—who, unfortunately, could not be here today—has been struck by the passionate commitment of the Dogs Trust to promoting responsible ownership that benefits the animals and the general public. It works actively to improve standards and to provide practical help, such as free microchipping. The example that Kenneth Gibson gave of the trust’s visit to his constituency was an interesting one, and I think that Christine Grahame gave a similar example. There cannot be many people who are unaware of the trust’s message, “A dog is for life, not just for Christmas.”

However, we must not forget the equally vital role that local authorities have to play in enforcing dog control and dog welfare legislation, and the challenges that they face in such work. That strong message came out of the summit on responsible dog ownership that was held on 27 March this year; another message was about the need to share best practice.

We expect to obtain useful feedback on responsible ownership issues from the responses to our consultation, “Promoting responsible dog ownership in Scotland: microchipping and other measures”. I am pleased that the consultation has been welcomed by Kenneth Gibson and other colleagues. It is clear that the matter is of huge importance to the people of Scotland.

The consultation closed on 31 March. Around 2,500 responses were received from a diverse range of people and organisations. That massive response demonstrates clearly the strength of feeling on the issue. The process of analysing the responses is now under way, and a report should be available this summer.

As has been the case in this evening’s debate, the main focus of the consultation was on the potential for compulsory microchipping of all dogs. The Scottish Government has long recognised the benefits of voluntary microchipping in reuniting lost dogs with their owners. Indeed, microchipping is recommended as best practice in the code of practice. I am aware that there are mixed views on the effectiveness of microchipping alone in preventing dog attacks or combating welfare issues such as puppy farming. The point that microchipping will not be a silver bullet that solves all the problems is a fair one; it should be one element of an overall strategy.

I am also aware that there are concerns about how to enforce such a measure effectively—Christine Grahame and others commented on that—and about the financial impact on responsible dog owners and those who use dogs in the course of their business.

However, I agree with my colleague Kenneth Gibson that compulsory microchipping could have a number of benefits for animal welfare and could encourage responsible ownership, provided that we are realistic about what we can achieve using the technology and that we can arrive at effective solutions that address the challenges of enforcement and funding. We will consider extremely carefully the views that have been provided in response to the consultation on the benefits of microchipping, the challenges that it presents and how they can be overcome before we decide on a way forward for Scotland. We will also consider the potential benefits and challenges of a licensing regime.

The motion is supportive of compulsory microchipping, but it raises concerns about the compulsory muzzling of all dogs. Those concerns have been reflected in most of the speeches that we have heard in the debate. I take on board the point that Mr Martin made about the role of muzzling in the light of incidents such as the one that he described, which was a great tragedy, and a suggestion about muzzling was made in the consultation.

My colleague Mr Lochhead and I share the concerns about muzzling in general. Legal provision for muzzling dogs that are known to have been out of control is in place under the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010. Dog control notices can include a range of measures, such as muzzling the dog when it is in a place to which the public have access, keeping the dog on a lead, neutering and attendance at dog behavioural training.

I take the point that many severe incidents have taken place in private settings. We must be mindful of that, but the suggestion of compulsory muzzling of all dogs in public raises significant welfare concerns, which many members have mentioned. That has been a hot topic in many of the responses to the consultation from dog owners. There is no doubt that muzzling can prevent dogs from biting, but widespread muzzling is not necessarily a proportionate step.

Muzzling impairs the ability of dogs to pant and drink water when exercising. It could also impede normal positive social interaction with other dogs and people, such as sniffing and licking—Alex Fergusson made that point. That could have the unintended consequence of resulting in more, rather than fewer, behavioural problems in our dogs.

Given the tragic results of dog attacks, which Mr Martin outlined, we have a duty to consider all options that could prevent further injuries. However, a sensible balance must be struck between public safety from the risk posed by relatively few dogs and the welfare of the large dog population in Scotland.

We must remember that the majority of owners of the 640,000 dogs in Scotland are responsible and their dogs are well cared for and well controlled. I take the point that Joan McAlpine, Christine Grahame and Dennis Robertson made about ensuring that local authorities know about the existing powers and use them when that is appropriate.

Given the horrific consequences for dog welfare and public safety that can occur when things go wrong, we have a moral and social obligation to continue to strive for better ways to tackle the irresponsible owners who place dogs and people at risk. I was greatly encouraged to hear the examples of Carnoustie canine capers, in Mr Dey’s constituency of Angus, and Alexandria dog care centre, in Mr Martin’s area, which are helping to ensure that owners understand how to look after their dogs and treat them responsibly.

Emotions may—understandably—run high, but a proportionate way forward needs to be forged that recognises the many benefits to society of responsible dog ownership, while dealing more effectively with those who behave irresponsibly.

Meeting closed at 18:02.