 The next item of business today is the member's business debate on motion number 11431 in the name of Christine Grahame on a shocking way to treat a dog. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put, and I would be grateful if those members who wish to participate could press the request to speak buttons now, please. I call on Christine Grahame to open the debate. Seven minutes, please. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. First, I'd like to thank all members who signed my motion to ban the use of electronic shock callers on dogs and cats. I'd also convey the apologies of Claudia Beamish, who very much supports a ban, but cannot be here to debate. I also say to those who have not signed the motion, come along to committee room 1 today and try one on yourself. Members of the press too are welcome to take up the challenge. Your neck is spared, but not your wrist. You see, if you chicken out, then you're actually saying, I don't want the pain of this, but it's okay for dogs and cats. That doesn't say much for you. Of course, if you have supported the motion, you are excused, otherwise you will certainly be on my name and shameless. Why bring this motion? As chair of the cross-party group on animal welfare, we put our money where our mouth is, and we decided we wished this issue debated. As with others, including Elaine Murray and Alison Johnson, I've put down a sequence of parliamentary questions in pursuit of a ban and to flush out the Government's reasons for opposing a ban. I also recognise the commitment of my colleague Kenny Gibson to this issue. The Scottish Government is maintaining its position that DEFRA research does not support the proposition that the effect of these devices does either long-term or significant harm to dog welfare. However, it further takes the view that colours should be used as quotes responsibly. That was parliamentary answer of the 27th of June last year. Obviously I disagree with the Scottish Government's position, as does the Welsh Assembly, which banned the use in 2010, where usage can make you liable for quite severe penalties up to 51 weeks imprisonment, a fine of up to £20,000, or both. That was done by regulation under the animal welfare legislation and the same could be done here. The Welsh ministers only made their decisions after receiving advice from the chief veterinary officer for Wales and based on evidence from consultations and DEFRA research. That legislation was challenged by the Electronic Collar Manufacturers Association, as you would expect. They lost and the ban remains. The mystery to me is why the Scottish Government adheres to its view. However, it is not just Wales that is counting Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Germany, Slovenia and most states in Australia. All have banned the use of electronic shock collars. How can it possibly be defended to send an electronic shock through a dog or cat's neck for quotes training quotes purposes? Shock collars can also perversely cause further behavioural problems. A dog may associate the electric shock with other events at the same time with unintended consequences, such as perhaps attacking other dogs. I've had pet animals for over 40 years myself and would never countenance using pain to train, quite the opposite. Despite the different temperaments of my pet cats and dog over the years, I've found kindness and patience through understanding that animal behaviour has allowed training to be successful. That is indeed a policy followed by my sequence of cats who have long since got the measure of me in having observed my behaviour and seen what works for them, trained me over the years without the use of a shock collar. However, let's park personal anecdote and sentiment and go for hard facts. DEFRA, in its funded studies published in 2013, concluded that there was great variability in how shock collars were used on dogs and that owners tended either not to read or not to follow instructions, so the main conclusion was that there were significant welfare consequences for some of the dogs. By the way, it's easy enough to buy these devices online. Prices ranging from around £20 to in the hundreds. Goodness knows who is buying them, if they bother to read the manual and how and where they are being used. I suspect that if you or I saw one being applied in public, we would be appalled. Deputy Presiding Officer, not only does 73 per cent of the public disapprove of the use of these devices, 74 per cent would support a ban. However, I know a group of 100 per cent who would vote against them and they really say it better than myself or any other politician, and here's what they have to say. In trials, one in four dogs showed signs of stress. It will make dogs sad. If you have a shock collar, you're a bad person. Why shock a dog when you can train them to do good things? Stop hurting my friends. Imagine getting shocked for up to 30 seconds. You wouldn't like it. The majority of people love pets, but some people take it way too far. Yes, dogs and cats can make mistakes just like us, really, but that doesn't give you the right to zap them in the neck, does it? If I was in this debate, I'd vote to ban them forever. Those are the voices of primary 7 at Morriswood Pennecook. I have to say to the minister that if the Government remains obdurate, I give notice in this chamber, do I feel a campaign coming on? I've got colleagues across parties who would support that campaign and not only supported by colleagues here in the Morriswood pupils, but remember the vast majority of the public, and the offer remains open to members of the Parliament and their staff and the press and anyone else. If you think a shock collar and a dog or a cat is just fine and dandy, come and try one on yourself later today in committee room 1, and I think you'll change your mind. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Many thanks. We now turn to the open debate. If members keep to their four minutes, I should be able to call everyone. I'll call Elaine Murray to be followed by Kenneth Gibson. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I first of all would like to congratulate Christine Grahame on securing this debate and on drawing attention to the continued use of this unacceptable practice of using electric shock collars to attempt to control the behaviour of dogs, and even more surprisingly, of cats. My colleague Maureen Macmillan proposed an amendment to the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2006 in the hopes of banning those devices. At the time, Ross Finney, who was the minister, stated that ministers wanted instead to issue a consultation on the use of those devices. He also suggested that the act provided for Scottish ministers to make regulations to ban them under section 23 of the act. I do not know whether the consultation that Ross Finney suggested was ever carried out, but the devices certainly have not been banned almost nine years on, although they were banned in Wales in 2010. I wonder in summing up this debate whether the minister can indicate whether there has been any consultation on the use of electric shock collars and, if so, what the conclusions were. The administration of pain as a training method for dogs is predicated on an outdated view of dog behaviour, which is based on a misconception of wolf behaviour. Studies of unrelated wolves and captivity in the mid-twentieth century gave rise to the popular theory that the wolf packs consisted of a pair of alpha wolves whose status in the pack had to be continuously reinforced or else they would be overthrown by one of the beated wolves who wanted their job. Most recent studies of wild, related wolves indicate that they live in extended family packs with one breeding pair, which are otherwise been known as parents. The consequence of the application of the model based on wolves and captivity to dogs with millennia of socialisation with and selective breeding by humans has been the notion that unless the human owner continually demonstrates that he or she is the boss, the dog will overthrow them and become the top dog leader of the household and that the human therefore has to continually exert their authority by force. In fact, dogs have evolved a surprisingly complex system of communication with humans over the millennia. They are happy to accept food and warmth from us, and they show no desire to undertake our responsibilities. Unless you see a Jack Russell Chihuahua cross dog sitting in my chair, sometimes I suspect that that will continue to do so. Dogs respond to positive reinforcement and reward. If a dog displays challenging or threatening behaviour, it has probably not been trained to use peaceful and acceptable methods of communication, and it is most likely that its owner has actually themselves used aggressive and violent methods of control. Sudden unexpected pain such as that caused by an electric shock will frighten and confuse a dog and is likely to cause it to panic, and then the dog may become aggressive. The dog may not associate the behaviour for which it is being punished with the pain caused, and recurrent pain in dogs has been shown to increase levels of cortisol, a hormone associated with stress response. One of the purposes of the use of shock colours is controlled barking. Dogs bark to communicate with each other, to indicate that their home is their territory, and to communicate with people, perhaps telling us that another dog or person is in the vicinity. It may be that the dog wants attention or is lonely or bored. Excessive barking may be very annoying, but no dog intends to annoy by barking or barks from devilment. Rather than shocking the dog for reasons that it will not understand, the reason for its barking should be analysed, addressed and discouraged. There are many ways of discouraging a dog from excessive barking, though they are not always successful. I am certain that this is an animal welfare issue. We ought to have banned these devices years ago. We must return to considering a ban, either using section 23 of the animal welfare act that was suggested back in 2006, or through any forthcoming legislation on responsible dog ownership, because I believe that there will be announcement on the results of that consultation soon. I begin by thanking my colleague Christine Grahame for securing the time to debate this important matter and the Dogs Trust's Kennel Club and one kind for their comprehensive briefings. I have a keen interest in animal welfare and, over the past few years, in conjunction with Dogs Trust and the Kennel Club, I have organised a number of dog-related events in my constituency and, indeed, here in Parliament. Cruel training methods, including the continued use of electronic training devices, are important. Since my election in 2007, I have raised this matter on a number of occasions with the Scottish ministers with a view to having those cruel devices banned. Frankly, I have been disappointed by the responses that have been received over the years and the debating tactics that have appeared to me to have been imposed. I hope that the new minister will take a fresh and more positive approach to this issue. Electronic training devices or recalls, as they are most commonly known, are used primarily to establish obedience, correct behaviour and prevent strain over designated boundaries. In essence, this is accomplished, as we have heard, through administering an electric shock either manually or automatically, through the caller when a dog behaves in a way that its owner or trainer does not approve of. While some dog owners swear by such training methods, there is no doubt that the practice is cruel and can result in more complex and dangerous behavioural conditions. Out of ignorance, many assume that e-calls provide a light electronic pulse, which will barely register with a dog but provide enough of a country that is deemed uncomfortable. Sadly, that is completely untrue. If members take up Christine's offer, I am sure that they will find that out for themselves. A small industry sprung up around the manufacture of such devices and many products are now highly sophisticated, with multiple levels of shock and vibration depending on how stubborn the animal might be. Those who have experienced this will know just how distressing this must be for an animal unable to escape from a caller strapped around its neck. Warringly evidence provided by DEFRA shows that many owners who purchase these devices do not consult the instructions properly and often guesstimate their own dog stubbornness and settle electronic pulses as they see fit. Although it does not favour any half measures and remain in favour of a complete ban on e-calls, allowing untrained individuals to use them on animals is tremendously worrying and should underpins the need for legislative action. As we know from Mr Pavlov's experiments, dogs can be conditioned and ultimately trained by introducing positive and negative stimuli. Dogs trust in the kennel clobber of the firm opinion that positive methods whereby dogs are awarded for good behaviour is the best and most efficient and most humane way to train a dog. Evidence provided by those charities shows that negative stimuli provided by e-calls can lead to serious problems. For example, dogs often wrongly associate something in the environment with the shot that they have received. That can lead to dogs becoming aggressive towards other animals and individuals and result in confusion, phobia, defensiveness and ultimately non-compliance. When, for mylenia, conventional and positive training methods have prevailed, it seems strange to me that owners would choose to adopt such a cruel and ineffective method of training their dog. Many of our European neighbours, as Christine pointed out, have chosen to ban e-calls despite the fact that they have been contested by the manufacturers of the devices themselves. Unfortunately, I do not feel the guidance provided by the Scottish Government while well-intentioned goes far enough and we know that the public supports a ban. Along with compulsory microchipping, frankly, I do not understand why the Scottish Government is dragging its feet on this issue. I feel that it is now surely time for the Government to follow the Welsh Assembly and our European neighbours and introduce a ban on the sale and use of those devices in Scotland. Thank you very much. I now call Nanette Millan, who will be followed by Dennis Robertson. I welcome the minister to her new position, as this is the first time I have met her in debate since a recent promotion. I, too, would like to congratulate Christine Graham on bringing forward this member's debate and commend her on-going work in this area. Even as a well-known catalover, Christine Graham has long taken an active interest in dog welfare issues. It is clear from the various debates that we have held in this Parliament recently that there are a number of important issues relating to dog welfare and the responsible ownership of dogs in Scotland. I thank the many organisations that have provided briefings for us, including the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust and One Kind. The use of electric collars and cats and dogs has been controversial for some time, as we have heard. Indeed, the Scottish Government consulted on their use as far back as 2007 but did not recommend a ban at that time. More recently, as has been mentioned, the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, DEFRA, has conducted research into the effects of shock collars. Although that did not reveal evidence that electric collars caused long-term harm to dogs when used appropriately, it did highlight a number of issues relating to the manufacture and regulation of collars to ensure a high standard and proper use. Its report highlighted that the use of e-collars can lead to a negative impact on welfare, at least in a proportion of animals trained using this technique. It also found that a large number of owners using the devices did so without adhering to the accompanying instruction manuals. Since the study was published, it is my understanding that DEFRA has started work with the Electronic Collar Manufacturers Association to provide guidance for dog owners and trainers on how to use those collars properly. It is also working with the department for business information and skills to produce a manufacturer's charter to ensure that devices are made to high welfare standards. As a dog owner myself, I have no experience of using such training collars and I have never considered using them. I noted that a study undertaken by the University of Lincoln involving the ECMA found that they were no more effective than other methods of training such as giving rewards. I understand, of course, the concerns expressed by many animal welfare charities that electric shock collars may fail to address underlying behavioural problems or may, indeed, cause further behavioural complications in dogs. I emphasised the advice that anyone considering using such collars should seek professional advice, for example, from their vet, before doing so. It is up to individual dog owners to ensure that pinch-prong or shock collars are used appropriately and anyone using them to inflict unnecessary suffering may be prosecuted under animal welfare laws. However, the issue is controversial. I know a number of very responsible dog owners who have used electric dog collars over many years and have found no problems with them. To some extent, I feel that the jury is still out on this, but I do hope that the Scottish Government will keep a watching brief on emerging research and experience in other countries and consider further action if it seems appropriate. As I stated earlier, a significant number of dog welfare and ownership issues have been raised in Parliament recently. I was pleased that the Scottish Government agreed to my request to undertake a consultation on the compulsory microchipping of dogs in Scotland and other relevant matters. That consultation, which took place following an excellent and well-attended summit meeting early last year, saw one of the largest responses to any Scottish Government consultation clearly demonstrating a high level of public concern. A report and analysis of those responses was published in October, and I am disappointed by the lack of progress since then on taking forward further measures to promote responsible dog ownership in Scotland. I know that many organisations and constituents also want to see action taken on issues ranging from dog welfare to the indiscriminate breeding of dogs and socially rented properties, the sale of puppies via the internet and the issue of electric dog collars could also be considered in this context. To conclude, in responding to the debate, it would be helpful that the minister could outline what assessment the Scottish Government has made of the consultation on promoting responsible dog ownership in Scotland and what plans it has to address the many issues of concern to dog lovers, given that no mention was made of that in the Scottish Government's programme for government announced recently by the new First Minister. I now call Dennis Robertson to be followed by Cara Hilton. I, too, would like to thank Christine Grahame for bringing this debate to the chamber, but Nenette Milne has made reference to the appropriate use of electronic dog collars. There is no such thing as an appropriate use of electronic dog collars. I know that the jury is out, but as far as I am concerned, any inflection of pain on an animal is apparent, should never happen, and there is no need for it to happen. Regardless of the dog behaviour, there are many other methods of trying to ensure that a dog responds positively to the owner's wishes. I have had six guide dogs and I am very fortunate because the dogs are generally well trained before guide dog owners like myself actually take responsibility for that dog. However, if you do not keep up that positive aspect, that positive training, that positive reinforcement, generally through reward, maybe good voice management, maybe just a cuddle, a pat or sometimes the occasional dog biscuit, that is a sort of behaviour that we would all expect of responsible dog ownership. I, too, like Kenny Gibson and others, have spoken with the cabinet secretary, Richard Lochhead, about microchipping. I feel that the cabinet secretary is sympathetic to that, but we need action, not sympathy. As far as a complete ban is concerned with the electronic dog collars, that is what we should have. There is no half measure here. We must ban the use of those collars. There is no need for it. Inflecting pain in any kind of control to try and get behaviour to change is not right. We know that through our children. We think that it is important to smack a child. We think that it is important to use copper punishment in schools. It is banned. I am not trying to have the parallel between a dog and a child, but dogs respond positively to good positive reward. I have never had to use any kind of negative control over any dog that I have owned, partly because it is well trained, but partly because I reinforced that positive behaviour. My safety with my dog is my priority. If I neglect to give the dog that positive reinforcement, that positive rewards, I am impairing my own safety. I remember many years ago that we were doing a training video to show how we could train a person who was deafblind with an assistant's dog. The police were called in because the person was giving the dog positive reinforcement at the edge of a kerb by patting the dog on the chest, but a member of the public thought that the person was hitting the dog. I believe that, out there in the wider community, the public are responding, I think, to poor dog control or poor ownership of any of our pets. The public are supportive of a ban on these electronic colliders and I support it. I am not convinced that we need to go down the same route as the Welsh Assembly and have the penalties that they have within the legislative programme that they have. I think that penalties need to be appropriate, but if we are going to ban the colliders, they need to go. My problem with the penalty aspect is how do we police and monitor it? To finish off, Presiding Officer, and I know that the chamber does not like stunts in the chamber, Presiding Officer. That does not mean that it is a stunt, but it is meant as a positive reward. I begin by congratulating Christine Grahame on securing today's debate on an extremely important animal welfare concern. I can also add my congratulations to the Welsh Assembly for the action that they have taken to ban the use of electric collars for cats and dogs leading the way in the UK. As Christine Grahame has already pointed out, electric shock collars are already banned in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Germany, Switzerland, Sylvania and in many Australian states. It comes as no surprise that many animal welfare organisations fully support a ban, including the Scottish SPCA, the Scottish Kennel Club, Guide Dogs for the Blind and the Dogs Trust. The public are behind a ban, too, with a Kennel Club survey finding that three out of four Scots are against electric collars, with the same proportion supporting a Scottish Government ban on their use. I believe that the time is right now for the Scottish Government to follow in Wales's footsteps to listen to the concerns of animal welfare organisations and to respond to public demand by taking action to ban these cruel and unacceptable devices in Scotland. Across the UK, an estimated 500,000 dog owners use these inhumane collars, which can deliver an electric shock to their pets lasting as long as 30 seconds. If anyone wants to experience the pain for themselves, as Christine Grahame has already invited MSPs and members of the Presbypopulontic Committee room 2, 1, after this debate, and try to call her out for themselves. When researching this speech last night, a quick search on Amazon revealed that I could buy a fully rechargeable wireless remote-controlled shock collar for less than £25. If I wanted a deluxe model, I could get one for £59.95, with 50 groups of warning tones and 99 different levels of what it describes as static pulse stimulation corrections. Both models are described as safe, reliable and a humane way to train your dog. The deluxe model even boasts boasts that it takes the human element out of what it describes as a correction, letting you control your dog from 1,200 metres away. The reality is that electric shock collars are not safe or reliable and they are certainly not humane. Those are devices that rely on painful punishment, causing dogs to live in constant fear of being electrocuted for what is normal dog behaviour like barken, training them to respond at a fear of punishment rather than a natural willingness to obey. It is causing unnecessary suffering, with all the evidence suggesting that dogs wearing collars can suffer physical pain and injury, psychological distress, severe anxiety, emotional harm and displaced aggression. Animals, too, will vary in their pain thresholds and what as a mild shock to one dog might be a severe shock to other. Scientists at the University of Bristol and Lincoln and the Food and Environment Research Agency concluded that the use of electric shock collars can lead to a negative impact on welfare, at least in a proportionate number of animals trained using this technique. They found that many owners use the devices without reading or following the instructions at all, many totally unaware of the high levels of pain that they are causing their dogs. A follow-up study by the Lincoln team, which was in conjunction with the Electronic Collars Manufacturers Association, found that the devices are no more effective for training dogs than rewarding good behaviour, as Dennis Robinson has already demonstrated. The Association of Pet Behaviour Councillors advises that the use of devices that rely on pain or discomfort to control behaviour is inappropriate. It advises that it has the potential to seriously compromise the welfare of dogs and rude their relationship with owners. All the evidence shows that those collars are not only infumain and unacceptable, they are also counterproductive, undermining the relationship between owners and their pets. I hope that the minister will listen to the genuine concerns that are expressed across the chamber today. We need a lot more than guidance, we need concrete action to protect Scotland's dogs and cats and we need a ban on the sale, use, distribution and possession of these cruel, harmful, infumain and above all, totally unnecessary electric shock collars in Scotland. Thank you very much and our final open debate speaker is Alison Johnstone. Thank you Presiding Officer. I'm very grateful to Christine Grahame for bringing this debate to the chamber today. As deputy convener of the cross-party group on animal welfare, I've enjoyed working with parliamentary colleagues and member organisations and individuals on a variety of issues. However, I'm really pleased that this important issue is being discussed in the chamber. I support a complete ban on electric collars and I'd like to thank all those who are involved in campaigning on this issue, the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust, One Kind and many other organisations and individuals. Animal welfare concerns many people in this country greatly. I've had the pleasure and privilege of growing up alongside a variety of rescue cats and dogs and I take their physiological and psychological welfare very seriously. There's such a large body of evidence highlighting the detrimental impact electric shock collars have on dog and cat welfare. We really need to follow the example that the Welsh Government has set. The example here is one that we must follow as quickly as possible. This issue has been raised in Westminster too. An early day motion in 2013 pointed out that the DEFRA-funded research showed that electric shock collars on dogs not only caused negative behavioural and psychological changes in a portion of dogs but weren't more effective than positive reinforcement methods, which is the main argument for their use. Why on earth do we persist? Surely it's more effective and humane to build a relationship of mutual trust and liking, and this can be done by positive rewards-based training, as we've heard. We can ask, as Conservative MP Matthew Oxford did, why the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs continues to ignore its own research. However, we as a Parliament here don't have to continue to go along with that. We can do something different. We really can put into legislation our commitment to animal welfare. We've been debating the kind of Scotland that we want to be in recent months, and I think that we want to be the kind of Scotland that puts animal welfare at the top of the agenda. I think that responsible dog ownership will never include the use of a shock collar. We have a situation where, in using electric shock collars, we have a situation where the presence of the owner announces the reception of a shock and of pain. What sort of relationship is that? We really do need to change the law. We can't simply ignore the fact that dogs are being subjected to short and sharp or prolonged electric shocks to correct what some people might see as undesirable behaviour. Elaine Murray pointed out that some of those undesirable behaviours are perfectly natural, like barking, and I would suggest that anyone considering using a collar should educate themselves first. The briefings that we have received today really do say it all. The Kennel Club tells us that unwanted behaviour in dogs is always best resolved by positive training methods. The Welsh Assembly agreed that there was enough evidence to prove that banning those devices would improve animal welfare. If that is the case in the Welsh Assembly, I would like to understand what is different here. The studies that have taken place already highlight the physiological effects, the psychological effects, the impact on learning, and none of those are positive. It really is time that we thought about the message that we want to give in Scotland. It is fair to say that colleagues have outlined the many issues surrounding those collars. One kind highlights the fact that this is a tool with the potential to cause significant pain and distress to an animal, and it is available without any follow-up control whatsoever. In closing, I would like us to bear in mind what Mahatma Gandhi said, that the greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated. I want to live in a Scotland where unnecessary animal cruelty is intolerable and unacceptable. Many thanks. I now invite Aileen McLeod to respond to the debate. Minister, around seven minutes please. Can I start by thanking Christine Grahame for bringing forward this debate and for allowing me to clarify the Scottish Government's position on the use of electronic training aids on dogs in Scotland. I also want to thank all those members who have spoken in this debate this afternoon and for their thoughtful and passionate contributions, which I have listened to carefully. I also want to thank the various animal welfare organisations such as the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust and one kind for their helpful and comprehensive briefings. As members are aware, the Scottish Government conducted a public consultation on the use, sale, distribution and possession of electronic training aids in 2007. The results of that consultation showed that this is a very sensitive and controversial issue with some animal welfare organisations being strongly opposed to the use of those aids and other organisations being strongly in favour of those aids. The arguments against the use of electronic training aids are very much around the fact that the devices can cause pain and distress. As we have heard this afternoon, the devices fail to address underlying behavioural problems and that they leave the root cause of some problems, like barking, suppressed, and the devices can malfunction or they can be used irresponsibly or in an abusive way. I am just wondering which animal welfare organisations are in favour of retaining electronic short-course. I am just going to come on to discuss very much around the arguments in favour and the arguments against them. I know that there are a number of organisations that are very much against the use of electronic training aids, but the arguments in favour of those aids are that much of the research has used a type of colour that is no longer in production, that the modern devices use a lower voltage and that they can produce a mild tingle or a warning noise that colours can be fitted with an automatic time-out, so that the shocker pulse does not continue and that in some cases training aids have been used to stop dogs, worrying sheep, so saving them from having to be put down now. The responses to our consultation indicated that arguments for and against the use of those training aids were finally balanced with anecdotal evidence on both sides. Dennis Robertson. I think that the minister for intervention, surely if we are talking about dogs worrying sheep, is the responsibility of the dog owner to ensure that their dog is on a lead and you do not require a short caller. Minister could ask you to speak to the microphone when you are responding to the intervention. Many thanks. My colleague makes a very good point around the animals if they are getting if they are annoying the sheep, so I accept that point. In terms of the Welsh position, the Welsh assembly, as Christine Grahame points out, brought forward legislation that banned the use of electronic training aids in Wales under the animal welfare electronic collars Wales regulations 2010 in March 2010. That followed a review of the existing signs on the topic that was conducted by the University of Bristol in 2006. Three consultations and discussions with the European Commission in this legislation, as we know, was unsuccessfully challenged by the electronic collar industry in a judicial review. As other members have also highlighted in terms of DEFRA, they did commission for the research from the universities of Lincoln and Bristol in the former project AW1402, where studies assess the effect of pet training aids, specifically remote static-pull systems, on the welfare of domestic dogs and the add-on project AW1402A fuel study of dogs in training. The welfare experts have been advising the Scottish Government in DEFRA who have considered the research in full detail and in full context. They confirmed that although that research project AW1402A did find that there were some behavioural signs associated with stress during the training of dogs with electronic collars, the full range of other behavioural and psychological monitoring that was done did not, at that point, show significant differences compared with dogs trained without using electronic collars. That part of the project also did not provide evidence around the long-term adverse effects in dogs trained with electronic collars in accordance with manufacturers' instructions. The Government keeps returning to this usage in terms of the manufacturer's instructions. What gets to me—I mean, I have opposed them in principle, but even if one were to accept that they should be used appropriately, who is monitoring it? Who is policing it? Who is getting into somebody's house and checking that they are using it occasionally for training purposes? Perpetually using it or putting it to high voltage, as my colleague Cara Hilton has said, can come with all kinds of voltages in them, so it really cannot be policed. I thank Christine Grahame for that point, which I will take on board, but also just in terms of, because I am conscious of time, that there was a report that was from the companion animal welfare council entitled the use of electric pulse training aids in companion animals that was prepared and published in June 2012, which consisted of the systematic review of peer-reviewed scientific publications. That report made some useful recommendations around the design and use of electronic aids that can be considered. Also, the Scottish Government supports the work that DEFRA has already undertaken to take some of those recommendations forward. The Scottish Government and DEFRA concluded that a ban on electronic training aids could not be justified on welfare grounds at this time, but that the improved guidance for owners and trainers was the appropriate way forward. In terms of going forward, we fully support the work that DEFRA is undertaking with the Electronic Collar Manufacturers Association to draw up the guidance for dog owners and trainers advising how to use the e-collars properly. We also support DEFRA's work with the UK Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to develop a manufacturer's charter to ensure that any e-collars on sale are made to high standards. Having listened carefully to the issues that have been raised—I want to emphasise that we will keep a very close eye on the uptake and effectiveness of the guidance to be published in due cares—we are also watching what is happening in other countries. Having listened carefully to the issues that have been raised, I want to give some reassurance to the members that the Government takes animal welfare very seriously indeed. With that in mind, as a new minister, I am very sympathetic and I am very open to us having further discussions around this issue. I have asked my officials today to arrange a meeting with Christine Grahame and the animal welfare organisations and ministers to discuss further action that we can be taking around this very important issue. Many thanks. That concludes Christine Grahame's debate on a shocking way to treat a dog. I now suspend this meeting of Parliament until 2.30pm.