Hansard

Thank you, Presiding Officer, for your indulgence in allowing me to leave the chamber early. I mean no offence in doing so.

I congratulate Christine Grahame on bringing the debate to the chamber. I like the fact that the motion begins by recognising and celebrating the contribution that animals bring to our world, whether they are pets or farmed or wild animals. If members think that the motion is a little overstated, they should try to imagine a world without animals. It is not a pleasant thought, is it?

The animal kingdom has every bit as much a right to inhabit this planet as we do. We share the planet. We have an added responsibility, which, as the motion points out, is to ensure that our animals enjoy the “best possible welfare standards” that we can provide.

I will highlight two aspects of animal rights and human responsibilities. The first was brought to my attention by a constituent who is profoundly deaf and whose quality of life has for many years been immeasurably improved by the companionship and expertise of a hearing dog. The issue that he raised with me is quite simply one of discrimination. We all know about guide dogs for the blind. How could we not, with the wonderful and aforementioned Mr Q in our midst these days? We all know that exceptions are rightly made for guide dogs in all areas of life from which pet dogs are normally excluded.

Sadly, nothing like the same awareness appears to exist when it comes to hearing dogs, although the same legislation and regulations apply to them, I understand. My constituent has been refused entry to a number of establishments over the years, and he now knows of many other people who have had similar experiences. He has waged a lengthy and commendable letter-writing campaign to have the legislation strengthened, although I cannot help but feel that it is we who need education about using the existing legislation properly before we resort to producing new legislation. It cannot be too difficult to ensure that our hotels, restaurants, cafes and other similar establishments are made aware of the need to treat hearing dogs with the same degree of respect as is shown to guide dogs. I hope that debates such as this will help to initiate and kick-start that educative process.

The second issue has been raised with us by the NFU Scotland, and is highly relevant to the human responsibilities part of the motion. As the NFUS briefing succinctly puts it, it is essential that we ensure that companion animals and farm animals can co-exist in the same environment without fear, distress or danger to each other. To achieve that aim, which is surely an entirely reasonable one, the human responsibilities part of the equation needs to be exercised to the full.

We read too often about incidents of sheep worrying and cattle worrying, but that can be addressed by owners exercising proper control over their dogs—if only they could be persuaded to exercise that control.

The second aspect of the NFUS’s concern is even more serious. We now live in a world where it is almost universally accepted that dog owners and walkers pick up after their dogs in our towns, cities and villages. I, for one, have been hugely impressed by the degree to which most people accept that as normal and sensible practice. That makes it all the more extraordinary that people seem to be reluctant to take that same commitment with them when they take their animals into the countryside. In an urban setting, dog mess is antisocial and unpleasant. In a farm environment, it is also antisocial and unpleasant, but it is dangerous, too. Dog mess can and does lead to disease in livestock, and can result in abortion in cattle and death in sheep. I commend the NFUS for its plans for a national campaign to promote an increased sense of responsibility among dog owners in respect of farm animals. I hope that Parliament will give that campaign its full support.

It is a wonderful thing that people are able to explore our countryside at will, but the right that Parliament conferred on them was not a right to roam; it was purposefully called a “right of responsible access”. All we need is people taking a little more responsibility.