Official Report 641KB pdf
Microchipping of Dogs (Scotland) Regulations 2016 [Draft]
Agenda item 2 is an evidence-taking session on the draft Microchipping of Dogs (Scotland) Regulations. I very much welcome to the meeting Richard Lochhead, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and Environment. I am sorry for our being slightly late in starting, cabinet secretary, but I am sure that we will not detain you too long.
Mr Lochhead is joined by Dr Beverley Williams, Andrew Voas and Andrew Campbell. I ask the cabinet secretary to speak to the regulations, after which we will move to questions.
Good morning, convener and committee members, and thank you for inviting me to speak to you about the proposed regulations.
As I hope the committee will be aware, compulsory microchipping has been the subject of much campaigning by animal welfare stakeholders, most particularly the Dogs Trust, and was debated in the Scottish Parliament in May 2014. It is an issue that many constituents, too, have drawn to our attention.
On 4 March 2015, I announced that Scotland would be taking forward mandatory microchipping and would aim to do so in line with the timetables of England and Wales—in other words, by April 2016. That followed a Scottish Government public consultation, 83 per cent of respondents to which supported making microchipping mandatory. The regulations before you were drafted under powers in the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. They were laid before the Parliament on 10 December 2015.
The Scottish Government has long recommended microchipping as best practice in the identification of dogs in our code of practice for the welfare of dogs. We recognise the useful role that microchipping plays in reuniting lost pets with their owners if the dog has been registered on a microchip database and the details relating to the dog in question have been kept up to date.
Although it is thought that around two thirds of dogs in Scotland have already been voluntarily microchipped, it is also estimated that there are over 8,000 stray dogs in Scotland every year. The cost of dealing with them is estimated at not far off £4 million a year, with the largest financial burden falling on animal welfare charities.
The Scottish Government considers that those figures, and the successful reuniting of dogs with owners, could be improved by making it mandatory that all dogs are microchipped and owners and animals registered on a database on which the details are kept up to date.
Bringing in a legal requirement to microchip would also provide the opportunity to require standardised types of microchip, standardised information to be kept in the databases and appropriate access to the data held there, all of which would further improve the efficiency of reuniting dogs with their keepers.
The ultimate objective, however, is to ensure that the legislation secures the welfare of all dogs in Scotland. There are potentially wider benefits to microchipping, for example identifying the owner in the case of an animal welfare incident or an attack, and the general objective of promoting responsible dog ownership, as well as other benefits, such as deterring dog theft and helping to trace those who are breeding or dealing in dogs illegally.
The regulations are intended to help to achieve those aims. I hope that the information provided by my officials to accompany the draft regulations has proved useful to you all, and I am happy to do what I can to answer any questions that you have.
Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. There are some questions, starting with Graeme Dey.
Thank you, convener, and good morning, cabinet secretary.
I want to explore the cost of the proposals for individual dog owners. We are told in the papers in front of us that the cost to an individual dog keeper would be between £10 and £30 for microchipping, with possible fees of between £10 and £16 for registration and keeping details on a database. Can you explain the range of possible charges? Why do they go from £10 to £30 rather than being a fixed fee?
The majority of responsible dog owners have already registered their dogs and microchipped them, which is the responsible thing to do and, as I said in my opening remarks, it is part of the code of best practice for the welfare of dogs that is promoted by the Scottish Government.
The range of costs that you have quoted is correct, and it is a range because there are commercial providers of the various services. On the one hand, if someone is lucky enough to be able to attend a Dogs Trust event they can get the microchipping carried out free, whereas if they go to a private vet—as I did a few months ago with our pet dog—they will pay a fee, as I did in Elgin, because there were no events in the area at that time. It depends what route people take to have their dogs microchipped.
Between now and April, I urge people to look at the websites of the animal welfare charities, particularly the Dogs Trust, to find out where those free microchipping events are taking place. I attended one a few weeks ago in Elgin, and there was a long queue of people from all over Moray and Aberdeenshire attending it to take advantage of the free microchipping.
The other costs relate to updating the database if there is a change of circumstances or change of owner. There may well be a fee for the database company. In some cases that is a one-off fixed fee for on-going updates over the life of the dog; other database companies charge a fee each time the records are updated. That is why there is a range.
I think that a number of members of the Parliament have hosted Dogs Trust events in their constituencies—they are very good.
I want to develop that a bit further, because I have been approached by the owner of a rehoming and retraining centre who has raised a concern with me. It might not be a valid concern, but I want to air it and get your views. The concern is that, if microchipping is mandatory, might we get to a point where those providing the service to microchip dogs could hike the fees? I realise that people will have a choice about which provider to go to, but is there a danger that, further down the line, the current reasonable charge of between £10 and £30 could become much more substantial? Are you aware of that issue?
09:45
That issue applies to many things that we pay for in life. At present, we have six database companies, so there is competition, which I hope will help to keep prices down over time. I am sure that the animal welfare charities will pay attention to the issue and will, I hope, have an on-going role. Should prices ever increase to an unreasonable level, I am sure that animal welfare charities would step in to help with that. That issue applies across commercial life, full stop.
I have a quick follow-up question on that. You said that the Dogs Trust does microchipping for free and that other private sector organisations do it. Do you have any plans to assist the Dogs Trust, financially or in other ways, to allow it to expand what it does to more parts of Scotland so that more people will benefit from the free microchipping?
We will certainly keep a close eye on the progress of the voluntary dog microchipping up to April and on what happens thereafter, but charities are charities, and animal welfare charities deserve a lot of praise. I commend what they have been doing, particularly in running free microchipping events. It is good to see charities occasionally going into more rural areas, which I would encourage them to continue. Ultimately, if someone chooses to own a dog and wishes to be a responsible dog owner, they know that that will come with a cost, from feeding their dog to vet bills or whatever. Of course, over many years, many responsible dog owners have been willing to pay out of their own pockets to voluntarily microchip their dogs.
I feel very positive about the regulations, but I have a small point of clarification. I see that, under regulation 10, a new keeper has to update the organisation that holds the records, for obvious reasons. I may have missed something, but do the regulations state somewhere that, if the present owner changes address, they, too, have to inform the database operator? I could not spot that, so it would be reassuring to know that it is there.
It is there, but I ask Andrew Campbell to comment.
Perhaps I can help. Regulation 6(7) states:
“From 6th April 2016, every keeper of a dog which has been implanted with a compliant microchip must notify any change to the details that are to be recorded on the database”.
That is an on-going obligation to update the database.
That is helpful—I missed that.
Has the cabinet secretary or his officials spoken to local government about the administrative implications of the measure? Are there notional costs that you expect local government to shoulder in implementing the regulations?
That is a good question. We have been speaking to local authorities. As part of the consultation process, officials had events or meetings with relevant local authority officers. On the financial implications, we anticipate savings to local authorities because, the quicker they can reunite stray dogs with their owners, the less they will have to pay towards kennel costs. Therefore, there could be savings. There is a fairly large degree of support among local authorities for making microchipping compulsory.
I understand that 84 officers who are either dog wardens or animal welfare officers are currently working in the 32 local authorities. Over and above that, I understand that there are around 100 authorised officers who can fulfil some of those duties. Staff are currently doing that job. I understand that they welcome the fact that there will be a law to support their good work in promoting responsible dog ownership.
Over time, I hope that there will be a cost saving for local authorities. There should not be too significant an increase in costs in the short term because, in most cases, the officers are already doing that job.
That is very welcome. I suppose that the issue is about the cost of chipping provided by local authorities. Have you any thoughts on a notional cost for that? What would be a fair charge?
May I clarify that your question is about local authorities carrying out microchipping?
Yes. If they were involved in that, what notional cost would be acceptable?
I do not pretend to know much about local authorities’ direct role in microchipping.
Do you see local authorities having a role, or is it a role only for vets or groups such as the Dogs Trust?
It is primarily the responsibility of individual keepers to get their local vet to do the chipping, or it is a role for animal welfare charities.
Local authorities charge people for reclaiming their dogs. There is a very wide range of fees, from £125 to, perhaps, zero. Does that charge penalise people who cannot afford to pay the reclaim fees? Poorer people might find that, rather than being reclaimed, their dogs are euthanised because they cannot afford the fee.
The fees range from £125 in North Lanarkshire to £25 in Glasgow city. The order does not deal with fees in a specific way. I want to raise that point because I am concerned that, with the best will in the world—even if dogs are microchipped—it will be an uneven experience for people whose dogs goes astray.
If the committee feels that that is an issue, I am happy to look into it further. As things stand, local authorities have a statutory duty to deal with stray dogs and they have the right to claim back some of the costs that they have incurred—kennel costs and whatever other costs there may be.
I have no doubt that the reason why the costs are variable is that each local authority approaches the issue in a different way. The regulations do not deal with the costs for reclaiming and it is not an issue that has been brought to my attention before, so it is not being addressed at the moment. It is up to each individual authority. In some cases they will charge and in some cases they will not. They have the discretion to approach each case as they see fit.
I think that the question is worth raising because it seems like quite an anomaly that people around the country could pay such varying amounts to reclaim their pet.
As there are no other questions, we will move on to the debate, under agenda item 3, to consider motion S4M-15056 and whether the committee should recommend approval of the draft Microchipping of Dogs (Scotland) Regulations 2016.
Only members and the cabinet secretary may speak. I invite Richard Lochhead to speak to and to move the motion.
In moving the motion, I thank the committee for its support. I believe that the people of Scotland support the legislation. Of course, this is happening elsewhere in the United Kingdom and is very much seen as a modern approach to promoting responsible dog ownership. It also helps to reduce the heartache of people who have been separated from their dog and want to be reunited with their pet as quickly as possible. It should be a lot easier to reunite them if the dog is microchipped and the information is up to date. In the few cases of irresponsible dog ownership, the regulations will help the authorities to hold irresponsible dog owners to account.
I move,
That the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee recommends that the Microchipping of Dogs (Scotland) Regulations 2016 [draft] be approved.
I would like to make a couple of quick points on the motion, about which I feel very positive.
It is heartening that 86 per cent of those consulted were positive about the new regulations. We have previously discussed costs, and I understand that a particular cost will be limited for people once the regulations come into effect because they will not necessarily have heavy costs if they lose their dog, as they will be able to be reunited with their pet much more quickly.
I commend the Dogs Trust and the vets across Scotland who have offered a free service and advertised it well in order to support people on a lower income as we move towards implementation in April.
As members have no further points to make, I invite the cabinet secretary to wind up.
I reiterate Claudia Beamish’s point that the overall consultation that we had a year or two ago on responsible dog ownership showed that there was huge support for this measure.
Indeed. Thank you very much.
Motion agreed to.
We will note that the motion has been agreed to and will pass on that information. I thank Richard Lochhead and his officials.
There will be a brief suspension for the changeover of panels.
09:56 Meeting suspended.