Consultation Response
Promoting Responsible Dog Ownership in
Scotland: Microchipping and other
Measures:
A Scottish Government Consultation
The Law Society of Scotland’s response
March 2014
Introduction
The Law Society of Scotland (The Society) aims to lead and support a successful and respected Scottish legal profession. Not only do we act in the interests of our solicitor members but we also have a clear responsibility to work in the public interest. That is why we actively engage and seek to assist in the legislative and public policy decision making processes.
The Society welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Scottish Government Consultation entitled Promoting Responsible Dog Ownership in Scotland: Microchipping and other measures and should like to comment as follows:-
General Comments
The Consultation has been considered by both the Society’s Licensing Law Sub-Committee and Criminal Law Committee.
The Society notes the “Audience” referred to at page 5 of the consultation paper and believes that those organisations referred to such as Animal Welfare Organisations and Charities, Vetinary Professionals, Local Authorities, Police, Dog Owners, Dealers, Re- Homing Organisations, Breeders, Microchip database companies and interested members of the public are better placed to consider and respond to the questions contained within the consultation paper.
While the Society considers that it is not best placed to answer the specific questions referred to in the consultation paper, it should like to provide the Scottish Government’s Animal Welfare Team with the following comments.
The Society welcomes any measure which the Scottish Government considers necessary to both improve dog welfare and responsible ownership in order to improve public safety and prevent dog attacks. With particular reference to the proposals within the consultation paper, the Committee has the following comments.
PART 3- DETAILED MICROCHIPPING PROPOSALS.
The Committee has considered the potential options referred to at Part 3 of the
Consultation paper. In general terms, the Committee questions whether any proposal to compulsorily microchip dogs in Scotland would have the desired effect of helping to reunite lost, stolen or straying dogs with their owners. Although the Society recognises that there have been a number of calls for the introduction of compulsory microchipping for dogs throughout the UK from Animal Welfare Charities, Assisting Dog Charities, Vetinary Organisations, and Dog Membership Organisations and who recognise that compulsory microchipping of dogs may be considered a positive move towards their control as it provides a measure of safety to the public and in particular to some instances it may discourage the indiscriminate breeding of dogs for commercial resale, it notes specifically the potential challenges of compulsory microchipping at part 10 of the consultation paper. In particular, the costs associated with compulsory microchipping and also the issues raised with regard to enforcement having a limited impact or encouraging behavioural change amongst responsible owners.
From a practical point of view, the Society highlights the responsibility and cost of keeping microchip details accurate and updated on the relevant commercial database lying with the dog owner. The obvious concern is where the dog owner then changes address.
The Society further raises the issue of the cost of financing a national database.
PART 4 – OTHER POSSIBLE MEASURES TO PROMOTE RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERSHIP
With regard to other possible measures to promote responsible dog ownership as set out at Part 4 of the consultation, the Society believes that a system of dog licensing would impact substantially upon local authorities as licensing authorities if they were given responsibility for its administration. The Society notes that it costs £12.50 in Northern Ireland to buy a dog licence at present and, on the basis that a relatively low fee would be paid in this
resulting from such a scheme. The Society notes specifically from the consultation paper that .
“A condition of buying a dog licence could be, for example, ensuring that dog 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”
The Society anticipates difficulties around how a “fit and proper test” can be established. For example, previous convictions are not necessarily a prime indicator of potentially irresponsible dog ownership.
The Committee further notes that the consultation paper states that a system of mandatory microchipping could potentially cover much of what the previous system of dog licensing aimed to provide and accordingly questions the necessity of dog licensing against that background.
With regard to the proposal to muzzle all dogs while they are in a public place, the Society questions the proportionality of such a measure. In particular, the Society notes the
following from the consultation paper.
“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 if well trained and well behaved dogs.
From a practical point of view, the Society notes that the extremely serious dog attacks which have been reported recently in the media appear to have occurred within the dwelling house and that even under current proposals there is no suggestion that dogs be muzzled whilst within their owners’ private property and accordingly such attacks could not be prevented by the current proposals.
For further information and alternative formats, please contact: Alan McCreadie
Law Reform
DD: 0131 476 8188
The Law Society of Scotland Atria One, 144 Morrison Street
Edinburgh EH3 8EX
