Promoting responsible dog ownership in Scotland: microchipping and other measures. Consultation Document

Transcription

1 Promoting responsible dog ownership in Scotland: microchipping and other measures Consultation Document 27 December 2013 to 31 March 2014

2 CONTENTS PART 1 ABOUT THIS CONSULTATION Introduction 4 Topic of this consultation 4 Scope of this consultation 4 Geographical extent 5 Business and regulatory impact assessment 5 Audience 5 Body responsible for this consultation 5 Duration 5 How to make an enquiry 5 The Scottish Government Consultation Process 6 Responding to this consultation paper 7 Handling your response 8 Next steps in the process 8 What happens next 8 Comments and complaints 8 PART 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Microchipping Process 9 Microchipping of Dogs in Scotland 9 Compulsory microchipping elsewhere in the UK 10 Potential benefits of compulsory microchipping 10 Potential challenges of compulsory microchipping 10 The Pet Travel Scheme 11 The Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act Dangerous Dogs Act Dangerous and out of control dogs 13 2

3 PART 3 DETAILED MICROCHIPPING PROPOSALS Potential Options 15 Detailed Considerations 17 PART 4 OTHER POSSIBLE MEASURES TO PROMOTE RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERSHIP Dog Licensing 21 Muzzling 23 Dog Fouling 24 PART 5 ANY OTHER COMMENTS 26 Annex 1 data on dangerous and out of control dogs 27 3

4 PART 1- ABOUT THIS CONSULTATION Introduction The Scottish Government has received a high volume of correspondence from organisations affected by dog issues, and from interested individuals in favour of making microchipping for dogs compulsory. In May of 2013, Mr Lochhead and officials from the Scottish Government met with the Dogs Trust to further discuss the issue. At this meeting it was agreed that the Scottish Government would consult on the possible introduction of compulsory microchipping of dogs in Scotland. Formal announcement of this decision was made by the Cabinet Secretary at the British Veterinary Association s annual Scottish dinner in June of More recently, following a number of dog attacks the First Minister announced a summit will be held in early 2014 on dangerous dogs. This will bring together Government, local authorities, CoSLA, Police Scotland, prosecutors, victim groups and other key interests to discuss preventative measures aimed at improving public safety and preventing dog attacks from happening. Topic of consultation This consultation is on the possible introduction of compulsory microchipping for dogs in Scotland and other measures to encourage responsible dog ownership with the aim of improving the safety of the public from dangerous and out of control dogs. Scope of consultation. We are asking for your views on compulsory microchipping and whether or not you feel it would improve dog welfare and responsible ownership, what its financial impact might be on those concerned, and how you might envisage it being effectively enforced. We are also asking for views on possible other measures such as dog licensing and dog muzzling that encourage responsible dog ownership with the aim that public safety from dangerous and out of control dogs can be improved. The Scottish Government is favourable to the introduction of microchipping but will listen to the consultation submissions. The Scottish Government is interested in whether the re-introduction of a dog licensing system might further enhance responsible dog ownership and how such a licence could work in conjunction with a system of microchipping. Again we will listen to the submissions from the consultation. 4

5 The Scottish Parliament has introduced muzzling as one of the conditions that can be imposed by local authorities as part of the issuing of a dog control notice under the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 for dogs that have been found to be out of control. The Scottish Government is not persuaded that a more general system is practical or justified. However the case for and against can be put forward in this consultation. Geographical extent of consultation This consultation applies in Scotland only. Business and regulatory impact assessment It is intended to gather information relating to the likely impact of introducing compulsory microchipping for dogs in Scotland in this consultation. If other measures are to be considered for introduction then a regulatory impact assessment will be developed on those. Audience Anyone may respond to this consultation. The Scottish Government would like to hear from anyone with an interest, including animal welfare organisations and charities, veterinary professionals, local authorities, police, dog owners, dealers, rehoming organisations, breeders, microchip database companies, and interested members of the public. Body responsible for this consultation The Scottish Government Animal Welfare Team is responsible for Dog Welfare policy and this consultation. The Scottish Government Justice Directorate is responsible for Dog Control policy and has been involved in the preparation of this consultation. Duration This consultation started on 27 December This consultation closes on 31 March A consultation period of 12 weeks applies. How to make an enquiry If you have any queries relating to this consultation please contact Pam Kennedy on

6 The Scottish Government Consultation Process Consultation is an essential and important aspect of Scottish Government working methods. Given the wide-ranging areas of work of the Scottish Government, there are many varied types of consultation. However, in general, Scottish Government consultation exercises aim to provide opportunities for all those who wish to express their opinions on a proposed area of work to do so in ways which will inform and enhance that work. The Scottish Government encourages consultation that is thorough, effective and appropriate to the issue under consideration and the nature of the target audience. Consultation exercises take account of a wide range of factors, and no two exercises are likely to be the same. Typically Scottish Government consultations involve a written paper inviting answers to specific questions or more general views about the material presented. Written papers are distributed to organisations and individuals with an interest in the issue, and they are also placed on the Scottish Government web site enabling a wider audience to access the paper and submit their responses. Consultation exercises may also involve seeking views in a number of different ways, such as through public meetings, focus groups or questionnaire exercises. Copies of all the written responses received to a consultation exercise (except those where the individual or organisation requested confidentiality) are placed in the Scottish Government library at Saughton House, Edinburgh (K Spur, Saughton House, Broomhouse Drive, Edinburgh, EH11 3XD, telephone ). All Scottish Government consultation papers and related publications (eg, analysis of response reports) can be accessed at: Scottish Government consultations ( The views and suggestions detailed in consultation responses are analysed and used as part of the decision making process, along with a range of other available information and evidence. Depending on the nature of the consultation exercise the responses received may: indicate the need for policy development or review inform the development of a particular policy help decisions to be made between alternative policy proposals be used to finalise legislation before it is implemented Final decisions on the issues under consideration will also take account of a range of other factors, including other available information and research evidence. 6

7 While details of particular circumstances described in a response to a consultation exercise may usefully inform the policy process, consultation exercises cannot address individual concerns and comments, which should be directed to the relevant public body. This consultation, and all other Scottish Government consultation exercises, can be viewed online on the consultation web pages of the Scottish Government website at The Scottish Government has an alert system for consultations, This system allows stakeholder individuals and organisations to register and receive a weekly containing details of all new consultations (including web links). It complements, but in no way replaces SG distribution lists, and is designed to allow stakeholders to keep up to with all SG consultation activity, and therefore be alerted at the earliest opportunity to those of most interest. We would encourage you to register. Responding to this consultation paper We are inviting responses to this consultation paper by 31 March To improve ease of analysis of the consultation responses we would be grateful if, where possible, you could use the online survey facility hosted by Questback, which can be accessed via; Please note that this facility does not reliably allow you to save a part-completed consultation and return to it later. We therefore recommend that you fully consider this Consultation Document and all the questions before sitting down to complete the online survey. Alternatively, you may use the Consultation Questionnaire Word Document supplied to provide your response electronically by sending it, along with your completed Respondent Information Form (see "Handling your Response" below) to; MicrochippingofDogs@scotland.gsi.gov.uk Or by post to: Compulsory Microchipping Consultation Animal Welfare Team The Scottish Government P Spur Saughton House Broomhouse Drive EH11 3XD 7

8 Handling your response We need to know how you wish your response to be handled and, in particular, whether you are happy for your response to be made public. Please complete and return the Respondent Information Form as this will ensure that we treat your response appropriately. If you ask for your response not to be published we will regard it as confidential, and we will treat it accordingly. All respondents should be aware that the Scottish Government are subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 and would therefore have to consider any request made to it under the Act for information relating to responses made to this consultation exercise. Next steps in the process Where respondents have given permission for their response to be made public and after we have checked that they contain no potentially defamatory material, responses will be made available to the public in the Scottish Government Library. (see the attached Respondent Information Form) in due course. You can make arrangements to view responses by contacting the SG Library on Responses can be copied and sent to you, but a charge may be made for this service. What happens next? Following the closing date, all responses will be analysed and considered along with any other available evidence to help us reach a decision on whether or not to implement compulsory microchipping for dogs in Scotland and other measures such as dog licensing and muzzling that may help protect public safety. In addition to this consultation, the Scottish Government will be arranging a summit in the early part of 2014 where key stakeholders will be brought together to discuss how the current laws and approach on dangerous and out of control dogs is operating and whether further measures are needed to improve public safety. Comments and complaints An opportunity to provide comments on your experience of the consultation is provided as part of the consultation survey/questionnaire. Alternatively you may also send any comments that you may have about how this consultation exercise has been conducted to the contact details in the Responding to this consultation section. 8

9 PART 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Microchipping Process A microchip is a small electronic device. In the UK, a suitably trained person (not necessarily a vet) implants the microchip under the skin between the animal s shoulder blades. No anaesthetic is required. Each microchip is coded with a unique number, which can be read by a scanner. Local authorities (dog wardens/animal welfare officers), animal welfare charities, and most vet practices will have scanners. It is estimated that there are approximately 10,000 scanners presently in use throughout the UK. Owners register the microchip number and their details with an appropriate computerised database. Owners are responsible for updating their details. Information needs to be kept up-to-date in order to be useful. Database information can be accessed with a pin/password issued by microchip distributors and database companies to authorised individuals. Microchipping dogs in Scotland The Pet Food Manufacturers Association in 2012 estimated that the UK dog population stood at approximately 8 million. If dog ownership is proportional to UK population, it follows that Scotland, with 8% of the UK population, has approximately 640,000 dogs. The Scottish Government considers microchipping to be an invaluable tool in helping to reunite lost, stolen or straying dogs with their owners, and this is why we recommend microchipping as best practice in our Code of Practice for the welfare of dogs. Microchipping of dogs in Scotland is presently at the discretion of the dog owner (except where a dog had been found to be a banned type or been found to be out of control see following sections below). In recent years, however, there have been a number of calls for the introduction of compulsory microchipping for dogs throughout the UK, from animal welfare charities, assistance dog charities, veterinary organisations, and dog membership organisations. The Scottish Government has received a high volume of correspondence from organisations affected by dog issues, and from interested individuals in favour of making microchipping for dogs compulsory. The issue has also been discussed in parliament on the 12 September 2013 at the Members Business debate. The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment, Mr Richard Lochhead MSP has also responded to a number of parliamentary questions noting the Scottish Government s position and future plans. 9

10 In May of 2013, Mr Lochhead and officials from the Scottish Government met with the Dogs Trust to further discuss the issue. At this meeting it was agreed that the Scottish Government would consult on the possible introduction of compulsory microchipping of dogs in Scotland. Formal announcement of this decision was made by the Cabinet Secretary at the British Veterinary Association s annual Scottish dinner in June of The Scottish Government would now like to consult all interested parties to gather their views on the issue, prior to deciding the best way forward for Scotland. Compulsory microchipping elsewhere in the UK At present in the UK, microchipping of all dogs is a legal requirement in Northern Ireland under The Dogs (Licensing and Identification) Regulations (Northern Ireland) There are also plans to introduce compulsory microchipping of all dogs in Wales and England, in 2015 and 2016 respectively. Potential benefits of compulsory microchipping Animal welfare charities, organisations and individuals supporting the introduction of compulsory microchipping of dogs in Scotland believe that widespread compulsory microchipping of dogs could generate a number of important benefits; It would introduce greater traceability in terms of ownership, and could therefore help to encourage more responsible pet ownership. It could help to reunite lost or stolen dogs with their owners. It could act as deterrent to dog theft. It could help to tackle the issue of puppy farming, and the many health and welfare problems that it potentially creates. It could help address attacks on guide dogs. Potential challenges of compulsory microchipping Before the Scottish Government can consider introducing widespread compulsory microchipping for dogs in Scotland, we need to carefully consider a number of potential challenges: Effective proactive enforcement may carry cost implications for local authorities, the courts, and police, for example in terms of available resources, and training requirements. A more passive approach to enforcement may have limited impact on encouraging behavioural change amongst irresponsible owners. There could be significant costs associated with microchipping for dog owners, dealers and breeders, some of whom may also need to undergo training to microchip, as well as to purchase microchips and a scanner. 10

11 The responsibility and cost of keeping microchip details accurate and updated on the relevant commercial database would lie with the dog owner. Microchipping is only effective, if the chip details are accurate. Different chip manufacturers may have different technical specifications for their microchips. This could lead to difficulties scanning and reading chips if the technology used is not compatible between systems. Anecdotal reports suggest that there could be further reliability issues relating to double chipping, migrating chips or even the removal of chips. Although reports of adverse reactions are extremely rare, some owners have concerns about possible health risks for chipped animals. The Pet Travel Scheme On the 1st January 2012, the rules of the Pet Travel Scheme (PETS) were harmonised with those in the rest of Europe. On this date, the Non-Commercial Movement of Pet Animals Order 2011 (NCMPAO) came into effect to implement Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 on the health requirements applicable to the noncommercial movement of pet animals and amending Council Directive 92/65/EEC. This legislation means that pet animals, including dogs, are now able to enter GB without the need for quarantine, so long as they meet all the statutory requirements for travel. To travel under PETS, dogs must have either an EU pet passport or third country official veterinary certificate showing that it has been microchipped; both the microchip number and the date it was fitted must be recorded in the pet travel documents. This date must precede all the other steps taken to meet the conditions of the scheme: rabies vaccination, blood test for dogs traveling from unlisted non-eu countries and treatment against tapeworm. Further information on the requirements of the scheme can be found on the Scottish Government website: The Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 Under the terms of the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 ( the 2010 Act ), a dog is defined as being out of control under section 1(3) where: (a) it is not being kept under control effectively and consistently (by whatever means) by the proper person, (b) its behaviour gives rise to (i) alarm, or (ii) apprehensiveness, on the part of any individual, and (c) the individual's alarm or apprehensiveness is, in all the circumstances, reasonable. 11

12 Irresponsible dog owners who allow their dogs to be out of control can have a Dog Control Notice ( DCN ) issued by a local authority authorised officer. If a DCN is issued, the owner of the dog is legally required to microchip their dogs. Therefore, it can be seen that mandatory microchipping of dogs already exists in Scotland, albeit in a limited way focused on dogs that have been found to be out of control. Section 2 of the 2010 Act covers the terms of the Dog Control Notice (DCN) and sets out the reasons for the DCN being served, the name and address of the dog owner, description of the dog, and details when the notice is served/becomes effective. The policy intention of the DCN regime is to emphasise the importance to dog owners of the need to control their dogs before dogs become dangerously out of control and attacks happen, and it is our view that the DCN regime is encouraging more responsible ownership, which is in turn seeing dog owners taking responsibility for the actions of their dogs and preventing them from being out of control in the first place. DCNs can include a range of measures, such as muzzling the dog in places where the public have access, keeping the dog on a lead, neutering, and attendance at dog behavioural training. For those dog owners served with a DCN, provisions also include compliance measures. The owner must arrange for their dog to be implanted with a microchip as a means of identification. This action is mandatory and must be carried out within 14 days of the DCN being served. There is some flexibility built in to this provision, as it permits a dog owner to present information (as required by the local authority) to prove their dog has already been chipped. In the first two years of operation of the powers made available to local authorities under the 2010 Act, approximately 3200 investigations have been carried out into potentially out of control dogs and 239 dog control notices have been imposed. The table in Annex 1 gives further details of how local authorities have made use of these new powers. Further information on the 2010 Act, including details of the Act itself, can be found in the links below. Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Act ( the 1991 Act ) was passed in response to a number of horrific attacks by specific types of dogs on members of the public. The 1991 Act introduced strict controls on types of dogs which were specifically bred for fighting (the Pit Bull Terrier, the Japanese Tosa, the Dogo Argentino and the Fila Brasileiro). 12

13 Following the commencement of the 1991 Act in August 1991, there was a period of time until the end of November 1991, where owners of these types of dogs could apply for their dog to be registered on the Index of Exempted Dogs ( the Index ). If successfully placed on the Index, a dog required to be kept in compliance with the strict requirements of the Act meaning the owner had: To obtain a certificate to enable them to retain such a dog; To have the dog neutered or spayed; To ensure the dog is permanently identified with a tattoo and microchip(electronic transponder); To maintain insurance against their dog injuring third parties; To keep the dog muzzled, on a lead in public places; and To ensure the dog is not left in charge of a person under the age of 16. From the start of December 1991 onwards, any person owning such a dog which was not recorded on the Index was committing a criminal offence and liable for prosecution. Until 1997, it had been the case that if one of the specific types of dog was kept without having been placed on the Index, then the person in charge of the dog would be prosecuted and if found guilty, the court would be required to order the destruction of the dog. This changed following the passing of the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997 so that the court had discretion in sentencing and was not always required to order that the dog be destroyed where an owner was found to have kept dog in breach of the legislation (though this did remain as an option for the court). What this means in practice is that where a banned type of dog is authorised to be placed on the Index rather than destroyed, a mandatory requirement is that they are microchipped. According to figures provided by the UK Government, there have only been 9 applications in the last decade ( ) for dogs in Scotland to be added to the Index. Dangerous and out of control dogs There is data showing the numbers of offences committed in recent years relating to the control of dogs. The data tends to show that the levels of offending gradually rose in the early 2000's followed by a gradual reduction in more recent years. For example, the table in Annex 1 provides information on a range of dangerous and out of control dog offences and shows that the numbers of offences have reduced (12%) since and reduced more significantly (22%) in the period since the implementation in February 2011 of the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act

14 Data in the table below shows that the number of people convicted of offences relating to dangerous dogs has been relatively static in recent years. People convicted of crimes related to dangerous dogs Year Total Source: Scottish Government Court Proceedings Database Information on the number of dog attacks that give rise to injuries is not regularly collected in Scotland. Clearly, some of the offences recorded in the preceding two tables will have involved adults and/or children being injured through dangerously out of control dogs and the overall numbers of these offences can be seen as an indicator of the number of people injured in dog attacks. The Royal Mail published information 1 in July 2013 indicating that approximately 2,400 postmen and women were attacked by dogs across the UK between April 2012 and April The equivalent figure given for Scotland 2 was that 187 post men and women were attacked in the same period. The Royal Mail indicated that although the numbers of attacks had fallen by 24% since 2011, the figures were still too high and we need to reduce this number further as even one dog attack on our people is one dog attack too many 3. In the UK as a whole, 18 people have died as a result of dog attacks since 2005 (as at December 2013). No one has died in Scotland as a result of a dog attack over the same period with the last death of a person in Scotland following a dog attack taking place in There do however continue to be a number of dog attacks taking place in Scotland which result in injuries to people with a number of these attacks involving children. For example, in October 2013, 8 year old Broagan McCuaig was injured by two dangerous dogs. In July 2013, 4 year old Sophie Hall was injured by a dangerous dog. These are just two examples of dog attacks where children were injured. In December 2013, the First Minister met with the parents of some of these dog attack victims and committed to consult on additional methods that might improve responsible ownership and public safety and to hold a summit on dangerous dogs in early Steve Greaves, Director of Safety, Royal Mail, 16 July

15 PART 3 DETAILED MICROCHIPPING PROPOSALS The Scottish Government would appreciate your views on the issue of microchipping dogs in Scotland. We are particularly interested in your thoughts on whether it should be made compulsory, and if so, how it might be effectively enforced, and on the likely financial impact for dog owners, dog breeders, enforcement authorities and rehoming centres. We will consider your views when determining the best way forward for Scotland on this issue. Potential Options As a framework for considering your responses, we would like to present a number of potential options going forward. 1. Status quo no mandatory requirement to microchip The Scottish Government, animal welfare organisations and others continue to encourage owners to microchip their dogs on a voluntary basis. The existing statutory requirement for the microchipping of dogs deemed to be dangerous or out of control or travelling within Europe remain in place. Pros No additional financial burden on local authorities/enforcement agencies in enforcing new legislation. No additional costs for dog owners/breeders. Cons - No improvements in terms of pet traceability, and no reduction in the numbers of stray dogs needing to be re-homed. No improvement in numbers of lost or stolen dogs being reunited with their owners. Improving availability and/or information is unlikely to significantly increase voluntary microchipping. 2. All puppies born after a specific date microchipped Could include those sold or given away, and those retained as pets or for breeding. Could place onus on the breeder to microchip and register the puppies details, their details and the details of the purchaser or person receiving the dog (where appropriate). It could be an offence for breeders not to comply. There would be no legal requirement for anyone else to microchip their dogs; however, it could be an offence for those purchasing/receiving microchipped dogs to fail to keep the registered details of puppies that they keep up-to-date. Pros - Over time all dogs in the population would become microchipped and details should be kept up to date. Cons - There would be a pool of un-microchipped dogs in the population for several years. Local authority enforcement might be difficult, and we might see little benefit of tracing stray and abandoned dogs to their owners for some time. 15

16 3. All dogs microchipped on transfer of ownership only Would include puppies and older dogs Could place onus on the person selling or giving the dog away to microchip and register the dog s details, their details and the details of the purchaser or person receiving the dog on transfer. It could be an offence for sellers or the person giving the dog away not to comply. There would be no legal requirement for anyone else to microchip their dogs; however, it could be an offence for those purchasing/receiving microchipped dogs to fail to keep the registered details of puppies that they keep up-to-date. Pros - Over time nearly all dogs in the population would become microchipped and details should be kept up to date. Cons - There would be a pool of un-microchipped dogs in the population for several years, including those dogs kept for breeding or as pets by breeders. Local authority enforcement might be difficult, and we might see little benefit of tracing stray and abandoned dogs to their owners for some time. 4. Two-phase approach over 2 years Would require all puppies to be microchipped on transfer of ownership in year one, moving to microchipping of all dogs by the end of year two of the legislation coming into force Pros - It might help relieve the pressures on local authorities and rehoming centres and reduce the number of strays needing to be re-homed within 2 years. Owners would also have a greater chance of getting back their dogs if lost within 2 years. Cons Depending on timing, it could put additional pressure on database companies to register a large number of dogs in Scotland in a short space of time, involving extra staff costs and delays in processing registrations (though database company representatives have already indicated to Defra, and to the Welsh Government that they are confident they will be able to cope with the large volume of applications this approach would generate). 5. Microchipping of all dogs within one year of legislation coming into effect. Provides a grace period for dog owners. Pros - This option would provide a clear enforcement date, after which all dogs must be chipped. It would help to relieve the pressures on local authorities and rehoming centres, in reducing the number of strays and dogs requiring rehoming and owners would have an increased likelihood of getting their dogs back if lost within one year. Cons Depending on timing it could put additional pressure on database companies to register a large number of dogs in Scotland in a short space of time, involving extra staff costs and delays in processing registrations (though database company representatives have already indicated to Defra, and to 16

17 the Welsh Government that they are confident they will be able to cope with the large volume of applications this approach would generate). Detailed Considerations Current situation in Scotland With very limited exceptions, microchipping your dog in Scotland is currently at the discretion of the dog owner. As such, it is difficult presently to ascertain how many of Scotland s dogs are currently microchipped on a voluntary basis by owners. With the following questions, we would like to gather greater insight from respondents into the numbers of dogs already microchipped, and particularly the reasoning behind the decision to chip. Consultation Question 1. Are all, some or none of the dogs/puppies in your care already/routinely microchipped? Please explain. Consultation Question 2. Do you offer a microchipping service to the general public? If you do, what geographical range do you cover, how many dogs did you chip in Scotland in 2012 and how much do you charge? Please explain your answers. Consultation Question 3. If you run a rescue/rehoming centre, do you ensure that all, some or none of the dogs are microchipped prior to rehoming? How many dogs did you microchip/arrange to be microchipped in 2012? How many dogs came to you in 2012 that were already microchipped? Please explain your answers. Potential benefits of compulsory microchipping The Scottish Government receives a high volume of correspondence on the issues raised in the following questions, and we would like to hear your views on whether or not compulsory microchipping would help to address them. We would be grateful if you could explain your reasoning behind your answers, and also provide any alternative suggestions or solutions to the issues raised. 17

18 Consultation Question 4. Do you consider that compulsory microchipping would help to make dog owners more responsible? Please explain and provide any evidence that you may have. Consultation Question 5. Do you consider that compulsory microchipping for dogs would help to deter dog theft? Please explain and provide any evidence that you may have. Consultation Question 6. Do you consider that compulsory microchipping for dogs would help to tackle the issue of puppy farming? Please explain and provide any evidence that you may have. Consultation Question 7. Do you consider that compulsory microchipping for dogs would help to address other dog welfare issues, such as abuse/mistreatment? Please explain and provide any evidence that you may have. According to the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association 2012 review on guide dog attacks, there were a total of 183 attacks between May 2010 and April 2012, in England, Scotland and Wales. Approximately 10% of these attacks were recorded in Scotland, which results in around 18 dog attacks over the 23 month period. Consultation Question 8. Do you consider that compulsory microchipping for dogs would help to prevent dog attacks on people/animals, including on assistance dogs? Please explain and provide any evidence that you may have. Potential challenges of compulsory microchipping The Scottish Government has some concerns in relation to the introduction of compulsory microchipping, particularly around its effective enforcement. In the following questions, we d like to hear your views on how it might best work in practice, and what, if any, issues you consider might prove problematic. Consultation Question 9. In the long term, the compulsory microchipping of dogs may require all owners to pay to microchip their dog and to update their details on the commercial database that their dog is registered on. Do you think that this would be an unfair burden on any particular sectors? Please explain. 18

19 Consultation Question 10. When a microchipped animal changes ownership, the registration details on the database must be updated for microchipping to be effective. If microchipping was to be made compulsory, with whom should this responsibility lie: The seller, the buyer, or both? Please explain why and how you consider that the requirement could be enforced? Consultation Question 11. Are you aware of any difficulties due to different microchip companies using different technical specifications regarding scanners etc.? Please explain. Consultation Question 12. Do you think that any regulation being introduced on microchipping should set minimum standards for commercial databases? Why and if so what should they be? Consultation Question 13. Presently, the dog owner, the microchip implanter, and some animal welfare organisations are able to access current database records, but only enforcement authorities are able to see previous records. Do you think this should remain the same? Please explain. Consultation Question 14. Do you believe that compulsory microchipping would be easy or difficult to enforce effectively? Why? Can you suggest what approach to enforcement would be most appropriate? Consultation Question 15. Do you have any concerns that microchipping could cause health problems in dogs? Please explain. 19

20 Business Impact Given that there will be a cost attached both to initial microchipping of a dog and to updating the database details of any dogs on transfer, it is possible that businesses and charities involving multiple dogs may incur significant costs. Conversely, such businesses/charities may find dealing with microchipped dogs advantageous. Your views on the likely costs and benefits are sought here. Consultation Question 16. Do you believe that compulsory microchipping would have a positive or negative financial or other impact on owners, enforcement agencies, animal welfare organisations/rehoming charities, dog breeders, pet shops, microchip database companies? Please explain. Compulsory microchipping in Scotland The preceding questions covered the arguments both for and against the compulsory microchipping of dogs, as well as the practicalities and potential costs surrounding its effective enforcement. We have also asked for your views on whether compulsory microchipping will help to address some of the main dog welfare related issues. In the following questions, we d like to hear your final thoughts on the matter. Consultation Question 17. Do you believe that all dogs in Scotland should be microchipped? Why? Consultation Question 18. Do you consider that any sectors of dog ownership (for example rehoming/sanctuary charities, police, armed services, security services, guide/helper dogs, vermin control, sheep dogs, or other sectors) merit exemption from any requirement to microchip? Why? Consultation Question 19. Which of the suggested options for introducing any requirement for compulsory microchipping do you believe would work best? Do you have an alternative option to suggest? Please explain. 20

21 PART 4 OTHER POSSIBLE MEASURES TO PROMOTE RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERSHIP This part of the consultation discusses other measures that may assist in promoting responsible dog ownership and improve public safety. We outline details of two specific measures dog licensing and dog muzzling - and seeks view from consultees on whether these two options would help make our communities safer from dangerous and out of control dogs. We would also welcome views on other measures that may improve public safety. Dog licensing A system of dog licensing operates in a number of countries around the world. Many of the existing dog licensing systems in other countries operate whereby each dog owner has to pay a fee in order to own their dog(s). Dog licensing operates in countries such as Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and Northern Ireland. It costs, for example, in Northern Ireland to buy a dog licence. Up until 1987, a system of dog licensing operated in Scotland (as well as England and Wales). This system was based on having to pay a fee to own a dog. There was no requirement for owners to demonstrate they could properly look after their dog. At the time of abolition, a dog licence cost 37 pence (equivalent to 88 pence at 2012 prices). One of the main reasons given for the abolition of dog licences was that the cost of the scheme was greater than the revenue raised. There were also issues relating to the enforcement of dog licensing with approximately half of all dog owners not having a licence at the time of abolition. Supporters of dog licensing consider that the most significant benefit of requiring owners to hold a licence is that it would help encourage a sense of responsibility for the owner towards their dog including the behaviour of their dog. As well as helping improve the welfare of dogs themselves, it can be seen that such a system could also help encourage owners to keep their dogs under better control, including through owners understanding they need to be skilled in the control of their dogs, so that ultimately our communities are better protected from dangerous and out of control dogs. It is of course a choice to own a dog. With making such a choice come costs. It was estimated in the RSPCA s Improving Dog Ownership paper that the cost of owning a dog each year amounts to approximately de=stg 21

22 If a system of dog licensing were to be brought in, it is likely that the system would require to be self-financing with the costs of the licence fee meeting the costs of administering and enforcing the system. Given the overall costs falling on dog owners to keep their dog each year, the cost of a dog licence would not likely be seen as excessive by many when considered within that wider context, though the potential impact on low income households and businesses with multiple dogs would need to be considered. Some consider that re-introducing a form of dog licensing would help promote responsible dog ownership. This is generally based on a view that any new system of dog licensing should focus on the welfare and wellbeing of dogs rather than simply being a scheme to raise funds from the dog licence fee. It should be noted however that a system of mandatory microchipping could potentially cover much of what the previous system of dog licensing aimed to provide, i.e. a direct connection between the owner and their dog (undoubtedly any new system of dog licensing would have to include mandatory microchipping as part of a set of licence conditions). However, a revised system of dog licensing that focused on the welfare and wellbeing of dogs could allow the imposition of specific additional conditions on the owner with the aim of improving the handling and ownership of dogs to help protect public safety from dogs that are not being properly cared for and looked after. A condition of buying a dog licence could be, for example, ensuring that owners were competent in the handling of dogs before a licence was issued which would potentially make more of a direct level of accountability between a dog owner and their dog. Although the previous system of dog licensing was mandatory, it was estimated that only about 50% of dog owners held a licence at the time dog licensing was abolished. Providing enforcement of any future licensing system would be important if a new system were to have credibility. It has been suggested by opponents of a universal system of dog licensing that it is likely to be that those that currently are responsible dog owners would be the ones who would comply with the system whereas those who are not responsible dog owners (i.e. the owners where such a system might have the most benefit) may not comply with the system. However, having in place a credible enforcement system may well help deal with some of these concerns with appropriate enforcement action able to be taken against dog owners who failed to hold a dog licence. What a system of enforcement may look like is open to consideration. It could be that a national system of dog licensing is operated by local authorities given their current powers through the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act With an estimated 640,000 dogs in Scotland, a significant amount of planning would be needed to establish how best a system of dog licensing, including enforcement of dog licences, could operate. 22

23 In summary, we would welcome views on whether a system of dog licensing could encourage responsible dog ownership and help improve the safety of the public from dangerous and out of control dogs. Views on how such a system might operate, including whether dog licence holders would require to demonstrate they were competent owners before receiving a licence, and how such a system might be enforced are also welcome. Consultation Question 20: Do you think a system of dog licensing could help encourage responsible dog ownership and help make our communities safer from dangerous and out of control dogs? Do you have views on how such a dog licensing scheme might operate? Muzzling Another measure that has been suggested to improve public safety from dangerous and out of control dogs is a requirement for all dogs to be muzzled while they are in a public place. There are powers under current legislation to require the muzzling of dogs while they are in public. Where a dog owner is issued with a dog control notice under the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010, local authorities have the option of imposing a condition for a dog to be muzzled at all times while in public. Supporters of this approach argue that this means that the muzzling of dogs is focused on those dogs that have been found to be out of control and are therefore likely to pose a bigger risk of potentially attacking someone than other dogs. Of course, there is also nothing stopping individual owners from deciding themselves that it is appropriate for their dog to be muzzled while in public. It has been argued by some that requiring all dogs to be muzzled while in public could help to reduce out of control and dangerous dogs within our communities. However, mandatory muzzling of all dogs while in public will likely have a welfare impact on dogs as it could significantly impair their ability to pant and drink water whilst exercising. It could also impede normal positive social interactions with other dogs and people, such as sniffing and licking. It is generally accepted that such constraints are acceptable where individual dogs have proven to be a danger to other animals or to people in the past and are a sensible response to the past behaviour of an individual dog. Many would argue however that a more generalised requirement for all dogs to be muzzled would potentially unnecessarily penalise responsible dog owners and their well-trained and well-behaved dogs. In summary, we would welcome your views on whether mandatory muzzling of dogs would be a proportionate step to improve public safety from dangerous and out of 23

24 control dogs. We would also welcome any general comments on any other measures that might help encourage responsible dog ownership and help make our communities safer. Consultation Question 21. Do you think muzzling of dogs while in public should be introduced? Dog Fouling The Scottish Government is clear in its view that dog owners who do not clear up after their dogs are breaking the law. We recognise the levels of concern among the people of Scotland about the presence of dog fouling in our communities and the need for firm action to tackle it. The Scottish Parliament introduced the Dog Fouling (Scotland) Act on 22 October 2003 and this Act compels any person in charge of a dog to remove its waste immediately. Persons committing an offence under the Act are liable to be issued with a fixed penalty of 40, rising to 60 if not paid within 28 days. Failure to pay a fixed penalty may see offenders facing court proceedings, which can lead to a penalty of up to 500 being imposed. Fixed penalty notices are issued by authorised officers, namely police officers and other officials authorised by their local authority - normally community or environmental wardens. Each locality therefore has both the power and the responsibility to tackle the issue in a way which addresses local sensitivities and priorities. The Act applies to any public open place, defined as any place which is open to the open air and to which the public or any section of the public has access on payment or otherwise and any common passage, close, court, stair, back green, yard or other similar common area. The Act does not apply to agricultural land, nor does it apply where the person in charge of the dog is blind or is disabled with a physical impairment which affects their ability to lift or move everyday objects. The Act also does not apply to working dogs being used to herd sheep or cattle, by the police or HM Armed Forces, Customs and Excise or dogs being used in emergency rescue work. We recognise that dog fouling is a serious health hazard, which can lead to toxocariasis (a disease which is caused by roundworms in the digestive system of dogs, this disease can cause serious illness leading to a permanent loss of vision if left untreated). Toxocariasis usually affects young children because children are more likely to come into contact with contaminated soil when they play and put their hands in their mouths. However, cases have been reported in people of all ages. Spreading toxocariasis is avoidable. Dog owners can eradicate this disease simply by picking up after their dog and regularly treating them with worming preparation. 24

25 The 2012 Scottish Household Survey also highlighted dog fouling as a problem, with thirty per cent of respondents stating that animal nuisance, such as noise or dog fouling, was very common or fairly common in their neighbourhood. Up to 2010 there had been a trend of gradual improvements in perceptions of neighbourhood problems, with 2010 representing the lowest measures of problems. However, the 2012 survey saw a slight increase for many of the categories, in particular animal nuisance such as noise or dog fouling increased by over four percentage points. We would welcome your views on dog fouling and how effectively you think the current legislation is being applied in your area. We would also welcome any general comments on any other measures that might reduce dog fouling and help make our communities safer. Consultation Question 22. The Dog Fouling (Scotland) Act 2003, gives local authorities the powers to deal with dog mess. Are you aware that local authorities have these powers? Do you think they are being used effectively in your area? Is there more you think can be done to address this issue effectively? 25