Dogs (Compulsory Microchipping)
The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-06981, in the name of Claire Baker, on the fact that 82 per cent of Scots are in favour of compulsory microchipping for dogs. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament congratulates what it considers the excellent work of Dogs Trust in rescuing, microchipping and rehoming dogs across the UK; understands that there are approximately 3,000 stray dogs in Scotland each year, resulting in a significant burden placed on the budgets of local authorities, including across Mid Scotland and Fife, for kennelling costs; believes that microchipping can assist in reuniting stray dogs with their owners, help to identify those who commit cruelty against animals and improve the accountability of owners of dangerous dogs; acknowledges the recent YouGov poll for Dogs Trust, which suggests that 82% of Scottish adults are in favour of compulsory microchipping of dogs; understands that compulsory dog microchipping is already enforced in Northern Ireland and that England and Wales intend to introduce compulsory microchipping in the near future, and notes calls for compulsory microchipping to be introduced in Scotland.
12:33
I am pleased to be having this members’ business debate, and I thank all the MSPs who supported the motion. I also thank the Dogs Trust for its campaign to promote compulsory microchipping of dogs across the United Kingdom. The Dogs Trust, which is the UK’s largest dog welfare charity, has two rehoming centres in Scotland—one in Glasgow and one in West Calder. I was pleased to visit the West Calder centre earlier this year to see its facilities and learn more about its work and the valuable role that it plays in rehoming dogs. In the past year in Scotland, the organisation has rehomed nearly 2,000 dogs. At West Calder, I also had the opportunity to learn more about microchipping and its benefits.
The benefits of microchipping are widely recognised. A recent YouGov poll for the Dogs Trust suggested that 82 per cent of adults in Scotland are in favour of the introduction of compulsory microchipping for dogs. Public support for the introduction of such a change is important, and those figures are very encouraging.
Principally, microchipping enables a lost or stray dog to be quickly reunited with its owner. It is a permanent method of identification—collars and tags can be removed or lost, but a chip is permanent. Many owners already take the decision to have their pet microchipped. It encourages responsible dog ownership and can lead to the owner building a relationship with advice services, who can then support their decision to own a dog.
Why should microchipping be compulsory? Why not leave it up to the individual owner? Part of the reason is that owning a dog is often not a decision that impacts only on the individual. Although there are many responsible dog owners across Scotland, MSPs will know from their mailbags that irresponsible dog ownership, whether that means dog fouling, stray dogs or noise pollution, can be detrimental to our communities. This week the Dunfermline Press, one of my local newspapers, highlights problems with dogs running off their leads and causing problems in public parks. Instilling a responsible approach to ownership can help to address some of those issues.
For dog wardens and other local authority workers who have to deal with those issues, microchipping enables easy identification of owners in order to tackle the problem. For example, in a recent survey of local authorities and environmental health officers across the United Kingdom, the Dogs Trust found that, although Scotland has one of the lowest numbers of stray dogs, there has been a decrease in the number of strays that are quickly reunited with their owners. On average, 12 dogs are picked up in Scotland every day. Microchipping assists their rapid return, allowing wardens to emphasise to dog owners their responsibilities and, where appropriate, that straying dogs are not acceptable.
In addition, under current arrangements, local authorities carry the significant burden of kennel costs for stray dogs. Increasingly, that service is being delivered in partnership with a private provider whose costs have to be negotiated. Although costs can be recovered if an owner is identified, when we look at Scotland’s relatively poor reunification figures, we can see that that is not always an option. The delay in reuniting a dog with its owner means higher costs for the owner. Compulsory microchipping would reduce costs for the local authority as well as for the owner recovering their pet.
I have welcomed support from Fife Council for this proposal. The council has taken a proactive approach to responsible dog ownership and recognised that compulsory microchipping is a beneficial tool that makes it as easy as possible for owners to look after their dogs and be responsible within their communities.
The permanent nature of microchipping can act as a deterrent to dog theft. Approximately 3,500 dog thefts were reported across the UK last year, which is up by 17 per cent on the previous year. Microchipping is consistently given as the top deterrent for theft. Of course, we are dealing with criminal activity and, depending on the reason for the theft, it might not be enough of a deterrent, but it gives a disincentive to theft.
Compulsory microchipping can also lead to easier identification and the subsequent arrest of owners who are guilty of animal cruelty, as well as supporting actions to address dangerous dogs. In Scotland, dogs can be required to be microchipped if they are the subject of a notice that has been issued under the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 or under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. However, that can happen only once a dog has been identified as a threat. If microchipping was compulsory, owner identification would be quicker and the workload and costs for local authorities would be reduced.
If, as in the rest of the UK, we were to decide on a system of microchipping before first change of hands, that would mean that all puppies could be traced back to their breeder, which would help to tackle puppy farming and reduce the incidence of infectious disease and inherited defects from which many dogs can suffer.
I recognise that there are questions of cost effectiveness. Microchipping typically costs around £20 to £30, which is a one-off cost that covers the dog’s lifetime. Although some people might find it difficult to find that money, owning a dog costs money through food bills, vet fees or grooming costs. In the overall picture, therefore, microchipping is affordable. To address the concerns that there might be about the cost to the owner, the Dogs Trust is working closely with local authorities throughout the UK and it offers microchipping for free.
On the question of cost, what does it cost for local authorities to keep an up-to-date database?
The scheme down south is operated by a private provider so the cost of maintaining the database falls on the dog owners. That issue would be explored fully in a consultation.
The Dogs Trust is committed to ensuring that no dog owner will be financially unable to get their dog chipped. Since compulsory microchipping was introduced in Northern Ireland, the Dogs Trust has chipped approximately 100,000 dogs for free and is running a number of partnerships with local authorities and housing associations in Scotland. Owning a dog is not cost free; there are costs involved. A responsible dog owner has to accept the responsibility of meeting those costs.
Concerns over compliance are held up as a reason not to opt for compulsory microchipping, but international experience suggests that the levels of non-compliance are moderate and the benefits of compulsory microchipping outweigh the concerns over non-compliance. Evidence from countries that use a compulsory system indicates clear welfare benefits, particularly in respect of increased proportions of stray dogs that are returned to their owners.
Microchipping by itself is not enough, of course. Owners need to register the microchip and keep their details up to date. We would need a robust system with compatible databases.
Since the YouGov survey results, we have seen a positive change of direction by the Scottish Government. Northern Ireland introduced compulsory microchipping in April 2012, and its experience so far has been positive. Following consultation, in February the UK Government announced the compulsory microchipping of all dogs in England by April 2016, and the Welsh Government has announced the compulsory microchipping of all dogs by March 2015.
Scotland must not be left behind. That is why the Scottish Government’s announcement that it will consult by the end of the year, having previously resisted that, is welcome. Perhaps the minister can say when the consultation will be launched. Following the consultations in the rest of the UK, the consultation can practically be lifted off the shelf. We could even introduce compulsory microchipping before the UK Government and see Scotland taking a lead on the issue, rather than playing catch-up.
12:41
I apologise in advance to members for having to leave the chamber before the debate concludes. As members know, the Presiding Officer has arranged for committee conveners to question the First Minister, and she has chosen me to ask the first question, so I will have to leave quite soon.
I thank Claire Baker for securing this valuable debating time and echo her comments on the excellent work that the Dogs Trust carries out to ensure the welfare of dogs. Last year, I visited its rehoming centre in Glasgow, which also serves my constituency, to see at first hand how the charity cares for dogs that may have strayed or been abandoned.
I am certain that most members across the chamber appreciate the importance of microchipping and the benefits that it brings to dogs and owners alike. I have been greatly interested in the issue for a while, and am pleased that the benefits of microchipping dogs have already been noted in my constituency after I hosted the first free microchipping event in Scotland this June. That event was tremendously successful. A total of 167 dogs were chipped free of charge. I reiterate my thanks to the Dogs Trust for its dedication, hard work and professionalism on 21 June, when it went above and beyond the call of duty in driving for five hours to the event, beginning early and working for more than four and a half hours without any kind of break, due to the high turnout and long queues. Constituents who attended the event were delighted to be there, and I hope that, as a result of its success, the event will be the first of many.
It is important to underline that it is the legal responsibility of dog owners to ensure the welfare of their pet. Indeed, a recommendation is included in the Scottish Government’s “Code of Practice for the Welfare of Dogs” that advocates the use of microchipping.
I appreciate that the financial burden of having a dog chipped can be offputting in the current economic climate, but the Dogs Trust has kindly offered to provide free microchipping at its two rehoming centres and at its roadshows. That can save owners the estimated £20 to £30 cost of microchipping their dog. I am sure that members will agree that it is important to advertise that service as widely as possible to increase the number of people who have their dogs chipped. With the recent YouGov figures showing that 82 per cent of the Scottish public support compulsory microchipping, as Claire Baker pointed out, I believe that most owners will be happy to take up the Dogs Trust’s offers where they can, although, of course, many people live in the far-off corners of Scotland and cannot get to either of the two rehoming centres.
Microchipping would be more efficient than the licensing system currently in place and would save dog owners time and money. The popularity of microchipping among dog owners is, of course, no mystery, and it is clear that the benefits of microchipping dogs are numerous. Those were spelled out in detail by Claire Baker, who talked about reuniting pets with owners. Stolen dogs can be returned, negligence can be dealt with, prosecution and tracing can be enabled, and hereditary defects can be dealt with.
Many dog owners already acknowledge the importance of microchipping, of course. Indeed, I recently dealt with a case in which one of my constituents had had their dog stolen only for it to be retrieved again in England and returned to him, thanks to the dog being microchipped.
It is important to emphasise that the benefits of microchipping are not limited to dogs and their owners. The introduction of compulsory microchipping will save local authorities substantial time when they deal with dangerous dogs, considering how lengthy and fruitless the dog control notice system that is currently in place can be. By taking a preventative stance, local authorities will be relieved of the financial burden that the process costs and will make associated savings in areas such as kennelling costs.
As Claire Baker mentioned, Scotland is lagging behind thus far. Northern Ireland brought compulsory microchipping into effect in 2012. Wales will do so by March 2015, and England will do so by April 2016. Being left behind should not be an option for Scotland. I believe that an initiative to introduce compulsory microchipping of dogs would help to ensure the safety of dogs and would put at ease the minds of owners and, in relation to dangerous dogs, of the general public. I am confident that, with the support of the Parliament, such an initiative can be created and the benefits realised.
12:45
I support the motion and I congratulate Claire Baker on bringing it to the Parliament. Many reasons for microchipping can be advanced. First, it causes no harm to dogs. It is important to state that at the beginning, since some people have suggested that it could cause harm. The Dogs Trust supports the proposal, so we can have no doubt that it is in the interests of dog welfare. Another fundamental reason for microchipping is that it can be beneficial for owners who might be highly distressed as a result of losing a dog. Clearly, through microchipping, it is easy to connect a lost animal with the owner.
Some people might accept those two points but argue that it should be up to the individual owner to decide whether to go ahead with microchipping. There are several responses to that, some of which have already been suggested. One example is the public cost of kennelling a large number of stray dogs, and we could add to that the fact that dogs often eventually have to be slaughtered if they cannot be reunited with their owners. However, an even more fundamental point is that the dogs of some individual owners cause problems. That is crucial in arguing the case for microchipping. For a long time, my view, based on constituency experience, has been that we need to be tough on dog problems and tough on the causes of dog problems. Frankly, in many ways, I do not think that we as a society are sufficiently tough at present.
That is in no way a statement against dogs, because we all recognise that the problems that dogs cause are ultimately caused by certain dog owners. One of the most awful things that can happen to any person, but particularly to a child, is to be attacked by a dog. I live in absolute dread of that ever happening to one of my young grandchildren. It is already recognised that microchipping can have an effect on the problem because, under the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010—on which I congratulate Christine Grahame—any dog that has a dog control order imposed on it has to be microchipped. That association has already been made, but the problem with that act is that not nearly enough dog control orders are issued. We therefore have to look at the issue from the other point of view and ensure that all dogs are microchipped. In that way, any dog that causes a problem—the most serious kind is an attack, but as we all know dogs running around in various places can cause many other problems—can be identified and connected with its owner.
Microchipping is therefore important in dealing with the problems that are caused by dogs. We all hear about such problems every week. As we know, the most common one is dog fouling, which we should never laugh at or write off, as it is a massive problem. I am not aware that microchipping can deal with it, although one of my constituents has suggested to me that, in the long run, DNA profiling combined with microchipping could solve the problem. I am not arguing for that, but we can all see that, theoretically and potentially, it could be done. Personally, I would just ask the Government to increase the fine for anyone who is caught with a dog fouling, because it is an enormous problem in streets and parks. Again, I particularly worry about the effect that dogs have on children’s lives through the impact on parks and play areas as well as the health risks of dog poo.
My final example is from this very week, when one of my constituents was most distressed because he had been on a cycleway and, apart from experiencing the problems that dogs running around on cycleways cause for bicycles, he had seen a dog off the lead destroying a cat. Councils should make far more use of byelaws to prohibit dogs from being on cycleways and from being in some—although not all—parks, so that those parks can remain the province of children.
12:49
I thank Malcolm Chisholm for referring to the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010, although I think that the trouble on cyclepaths is to do with the owners, rather than the dogs. I congratulate Claire Baker on bringing the issue to the Parliament, although I did not sign her motion, and she is going to find out why.
As members know, I piloted the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 and I convene the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on animal welfare. I have a lot of time for the Dogs Trust and a huge amount of time for universal voluntary microchipping. The system has great advantages for good owners.
I can give a brief personal example of how the system works. I ask members to picture me, a few years ago at 3 o’clock in the morning on 2 January, as I was tucked up in bed. I heard a yowling outside the window and found a little Staffordshire terrier peeking through the hedge. I have two cats, which were in a state of terror as I brought the Staffordshire terrier in. What was I to do with him? I was leaving for Ayr in the morning, so I could not keep him. I eventually phoned the police—not the emergency line. Hours later, they turned up to question me, and they took the dog away to keep it overnight, so that the owner would be able to find it. I think that the most embarrassing question that I was asked was not “How old are you?” but “What do you do for a living?” There I was, sitting in my pyjamas with this dog, and my cats climbing the walls. I said, “I’m a politician.” That made the officers’ day.
Anyway, the dog was microchipped. However, the owners did not come to get it for a week. I wondered why they had not come earlier, and I was told that it is quite common for people to dump a dog over Christmas or new year or when they go on holiday, so that someone else pays for the dog’s board and kennelling. I am concerned that bad owners do that all the time, and in my view, bad owners will not microchip their dogs anyway—they certainly would not want their dogs to be tracked.
The Dogs Trust supports compulsory microchipping, but I was interested to learn that the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals does not. The jury is still out for the SSPCA, and it is still out for me. In a perfect world I would support compulsory microchipping, but we live in an imperfect world, with imperfect dog owners.
For example, Claire Baker talked about dogs that come from breeders. What about a dog that someone just passes to their next-door neighbour? Dogs that change hands without going past a breeder, good or bad, will not necessarily get microchipped. What about dogs that are dumped? A person who dumps a dog that they have had enough of, because it is not a lovely wee fluffy puppy any more, will not necessarily have had the dog microchipped—and they will certainly not want the dog to be tracked to them.
What about a dog that has been microchipped but has passed through several owners? Unless the new owner keeps the database up to date, the microchip will track ownership to a person who has nothing to do with the dog.
There are issues. I am not saying that compulsory microchipping is a bad idea. I am just saying that there are issues.
Will the member give way?
I have only two minutes. I am just suggesting tests. I am not trying to prevent the idea from going forward; I want us to consider the law of unintended consequences.
Mike Flynn, who is senior inspector at the SSPCA, said:
“We support voluntary micro chipping of pets but not necessarily compulsory chipping. There is no point in making it compulsory unless there was a system and legislation in place, to ensure that the details are kept up to date and transfer of ownership is recorded (the same as if you sell a car).”
There are issues to do with tracking. Mike Flynn also told me:
“we already get abused and emaciated animals being dumped by cruel owners in a effort to avoid detection, if all dogs and cats were micro chipped, some of these people may try to remove or destroy the chip to avoid detection.”
Someone said that a microchip cannot be removed—yes, it can. It damages the dog. A person could cut off a dog’s ear or take a bit out of it, to remove the microchip. It would not be done nicely, but it could certainly be done.
All I am asking members to do is to think of the law of unintended consequences—my favourite phrase. Claire Baker’s intentions and the intentions of the Dogs Trust are excellent, but there are issues that mean that it would not be easy to legislate for, or indeed to police, compulsory microchipping and get at the bad owners.
12:53
Nanette Milne (North East Scotland) (Con)
I congratulate Claire Baker on securing the debate.
Despite recent efforts to encourage responsible dog ownership, there are too many examples of poor control and indiscriminate breeding. The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association reports eight dog attacks a month. Recently a family pet was subjected to a horrific mauling by a Staffordshire bull terrier on an Aberdeen street, and an Inverness man nearly lost an eye after being attacked by a dog as he sat on a bench beside the River Ness. Such attacks demonstrate the need for action to promote responsible dog ownership and address illegal breeding. Microchipping will not solve the problem, but it can help to identify culprits, as well as make it easier to reunite stray dogs with their owners.
The public mood appears to be increasingly in favour of compulsory microchipping. As we heard, elsewhere in the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland introduced the measure in April last year, the Westminster Government has announced that it will be introduced in England by April 2016 and Wales plans to have it in law by March 2015.
Over the past year, with the help of the Dogs Trust, I have been pressing the Scottish Government to introduce compulsory microchipping in Scotland. In May I was pleased when the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment agreed to meet me and representatives from the trust to discuss the issue. We had a very constructive meeting and I very much welcome the cabinet secretary’s agreement to undertake to proceed with a national consultation on the compulsory microchipping of dogs and the control of dogs in Scotland, which should answer some of Christine Grahame’s questions. I would be grateful if the minister could give us an idea of the timetable for that consultation in his closing speech.
There are specific issues relating to puppy farms and to the cross-border movement of dogs, in particular from the Irish Republic and from eastern Europe. However, the most pressing issue that has been raised with me as an MSP is the indiscriminate breeding of dogs in social rented properties. I recently visited Angus Dog Rescue near Arbroath and saw at first hand the consequences of that. Dog rescue centres across Scotland such as the one in Angus are seeing a significant increase in the number of dogs that are being abandoned and are experiencing a particular problem regarding the breeding of certain types of dogs such as bulldogs and Staffordshire bull terriers.
I am in no doubt that when properly cared for and raised in a responsible environment, such dogs make wonderful family pets, but sadly more and more indiscriminate breeding of those dogs has resulted in many dangerous feral animals and concern has been expressed to me that in time there will be a serious or fatal accident because of that.
It is my understanding that current legislation allows for tenants in social rented housing to own dogs only after notifying the landlord and that the breeding of dogs is not permitted. However, I am told that that legislation is not always being enforced and it has been suggested to me that a small number of properties already known to the authorities are often at the heart of the problem. Will the minister look at that problem? Will he liaise with the Minister for Housing and Welfare to review current guidance on the keeping of dogs in the social rented sector? Perhaps he will agree to meet representatives of organisations such as Angus Dog Rescue to learn more about the indiscriminate breeding of dogs and how that serious issue may be addressed.
I pay tribute to the work of all Scotland’s dog charities and the many individual volunteers who strive to secure for so many abandoned and neglected dogs the loving homes that they deserve, with responsible owners who know how to control and bring out the best in these wonderful animals.
I hope that the Government will listen to public opinion, pay heed to the excellent work of the Dogs Trust, and bring Scotland into line with our neighbouring countries by introducing compulsory microchipping of dogs in Scotland as soon as possible and ideally prior to the change in the English law in 2016.
12:57
Fiona McLeod (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
I add my thanks to Claire Baker for bringing this important debate to Parliament. There have been a lot of interesting facts and figures from previous speakers but I come to the debate very much from the heart rather than from the head. I adopted my cat Sophie from the SSPCA in 2002 and we were not allowed to take her home without accepting that she would be microchipped. Two years later, when I bought my Dalmatian, Rona, my first thought was that she must be microchipped.
Claire Baker talked about the fact that in Scotland, more than 2,000 dogs a year are not reunited with their families. That must be heartbreaking, and one of the simplest things to do is to microchip your dog.
I also remember the story of my next-door neighbour’s westie, Hamish. This is more than 10 years ago. Hamish was not chipped and he was stolen—he did not stray; he was stolen. About two weeks later, Hamish’s owner was driving along the road and saw Hamish. He got out of the car and challenged the people and they gave Hamish back to him. Hamish was not microchipped. I think that Hamish was returned because his owner was in a police uniform when he challenged the people who stole Hamish. Would it not have been so much easier if Hamish had had his chip? The owner could have got Hamish back without having to exert his authority in that way.
I also remember when I was young, about eight years old, a lovely mongrel that we called Sally came into our street. Sally was adopted by the Windrams and she became part of our street and part of everybody’s family, but it must have been awful for her first owners, who never got Sally back again. We had the joy but they did not.
Malcolm Chisholm referred to some of the claims about the alleged health risks of using microchips. In the whole time of the debate, I have had only one email from someone raising rather dubious health risk claims about microchipping dogs. Being the librarian that I am, I went away and did a bit of research and Malcolm Chisholm is absolutely correct. There is very good evidence to show that microchipping is useful for social purposes and is not harmful to the individual animal.
Evidence and emotion mean that microchipping makes sense. I am really pleased that the Scottish Government announced earlier in the year that it is going to undertake a consultation. I understand that the cabinet secretary spoke to the British Veterinary Association on the matter in June.
I urge all dog lovers to take part in the consultation when we get it. I say to people such as Christine Grahame, who have doubts about the proposal, to get involved in the consultation so that, at the end, the evidence shows clearly that this is something that we want to do for ourselves and for our animals.
13:00
I thank my colleague Claire Baker for bringing this important topic to the chamber for debate. I will pick up on a couple of the points that Christine Grahame raised—I am sorry that she is no longer in the chamber. I congratulate her on the bill that she introduced in 2009 on dog control notices, which became the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010, but I wonder if it is perhaps now time to review that legislation. Kenny Gibson called the dog control notice process “lengthy and fruitless”. Community safety wardens are responsible for issuing dog control notices—that is in the power of local authorities—but the evidence from the ones I have spoken to in my communities in Dundee is that they are not aware that dog control is within their power, and they think that it is within police power.
I am about to address something awful, to which I think Nanette Milne alluded, which happened in Angus this summer. It is my understanding that Angus Council has issued no dog control notices whatever, despite the fact that there was a terrible attack. I say respectfully to the minister that, although I know that the 2010 legislation was very well intended and a thorough consultation was done, we need to consider the act’s effectiveness.
I come to this issue because some of the communities that I represent, and especially the most deprived communities in our country, have real issues with dangerous dogs, in particular some breeds of very dangerous dogs that are let out, roam the streets and attack children. It was in August this year that 13-year-old Amy Adams was in a park in Arbroath when she was attacked by a stray Staffordshire bull terrier. The experience was terrifying in itself, but Amy sustained a puncture wound to her hand, which became infected. She was in surgery for four hours. She was first treated at Arbroath royal infirmary, but the infection travelled up her arm and she was rushed to Ninewells hospital in Dundee to see the specialist plastic surgery team.
Amy’s story is by no means unique. In May this year, a 13-year-old boy was rushed to hospital after being attacked by a dog in a home in my home city of Dundee. It is also very difficult to forget the story of 10-year-old Rhianna Kidd, who was attacked by two Rottweilers as she played on her bike in Dryburgh in my home city in 2010.
Irresponsible dog owners are a threat to our communities. The psychological consequences of a dog attack, as Malcolm Chisholm said, can last long after physical recovery, especially for young children. I am supporting Claire Baker’s motion today because I believe that compulsory microchipping could help to tackle dangerous dog attacks by creating a culture of more responsible dog ownership. By providing a clear line of accountability from dog to owner, it could help to reduce the number of dogs that go stray, like the dog that attacked Amy. It could also help the police to trace those dogs that become dangerous back to their owners.
Microchipping is, of course, not an answer in itself, and it will not stop dangerous dog attacks, but it could help by encouraging responsible behaviour and keeping children safe from harm. I support the motion, and I ask the minister whether he will consider examining the 2010 act and perhaps applying post-legislative scrutiny to it—and whether he will look into how many dog control orders are being issued and how effective they are.
13:04
The Minister for Environment and Climate Change (Paul Wheelhouse)
I congratulate Claire Baker on bringing to the chamber today an important subject for debate. Indeed, the debate has been of great quality and has shown the different perspectives that people have on the issue.
The Scottish Government recognises and values the important work, including that of the Dogs Trust, that many animal welfare charities and organisations undertake in rescuing and rehoming unwanted animals across Scotland. If nothing else, the debate has highlighted the importance and value of owners voluntarily microchipping their dogs. Indeed, a number of members mentioned the support available from the Dogs Trust to fund the cost. I hope that the media coverage of the debate will at least pick up on that and remind people of that opportunity.
As Claire Baker and Kenneth Gibson identified, we have long recognised the benefits of microchipping. That is why we recommended it as best practice in our “Code of Practice for the Welfare of Dogs”, which was published in 2010. Microchipping can prove an invaluable tool in helping to reunite lost, stolen or straying dogs with their owners and, potentially, to reduce the number of healthy dogs being put to sleep. I agree with members that that is an extremely distressing consequence of dogs not being microchipped or reunited with their owners.
The Scottish Government is also aware that many welfare organisations, groups and individuals in favour of the introduction of compulsory microchipping in Scotland believe that it will help to tackle the problem of puppy farming and the many health and welfare problems that it creates, which Claire Baker referred to earlier. They also consider that compulsory microchipping could prove helpful in raising a better awareness of the duty of care that owners have to their pets, thereby fostering a culture of more responsible ownership. Indeed, the very horrific incidents that Jenny Marra and Nanette Milne referred to illustrate why we need a culture of responsible dog ownership in this country.
My colleague Richard Lochhead MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment, met Nanette Milne and representatives of the Dogs Trust in May this year to discuss compulsory microchipping of all dogs in Scotland. At that meeting, the Dogs Trust highlighted the recent YouGov poll to which Claire Baker referred, which showed that 82 per cent of the Scottish adults surveyed support the introduction of compulsory microchipping for all dogs in Scotland. The Dogs Trust also advised that it currently offers free chipping by appointment at any Dogs Trust centre and will offer a free microchipping scheme for a limited period in Wales and England in advance of compulsory microchipping. The Dogs Trust has assured the Scottish Government that, if compulsory microchipping is introduced in Scotland, it would offer a similar free chipping scheme here for a limited period.
At that meeting, the Scottish Government agreed to issue a formal consultation on the introduction of compulsory microchipping for all dogs in Scotland. However, we still have some concerns, particularly about the cost and practicalities of enforcement, which I will outline. The effective enforcement of compulsory microchipping for all dogs could prove relatively resource intensive. I understand that, currently, local authority animal welfare officers cover a wide range of duties in addition to dog welfare and not every local authority has the resources available to offer a dedicated dog warden service in its area. Indeed, Jenny Marra pointed out that some dog owners are not aware of local authorities’ ability to enforce dog control measures, which is interesting indeed. Although compulsory microchipping would reduce the financial burden that local authorities currently face when dealing with stray dogs, it could create a new burden in terms of the allocation of available resources to enforce new legislation.
The Dogs Trust has committed to offering a free chipping scheme in Scotland for a limited period should compulsory microchipping be introduced. We appreciate that that generous service would help those on lower incomes to microchip their dogs, but we still have some concerns about the on-going associated costs for dog owners in ensuring that their details are accurate and up to date. It is important to note that at present costs vary between database companies, but owners who are having their pet chipped might not be aware of that factor, nor have a choice about which database company their details are registered with. My understanding of what is happening in England and Wales is that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Welsh Assembly Government have no intention of operating a central or local authority database. Similarly, we would continue to rely on existing commercial databases; at least, that would appear to be the likely outcome. However, it is important to remember that at present microchipping costs vary.
Irresponsible owners who allow their dogs to be out of control are already required to microchip their dogs if they receive a dog control notice under the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010. I, too, congratulate Christine Grahame on bringing forward that legislation, which makes it easier for local authority-appointed authorised officers to monitor and enforce dog control notices that have been issued.
I should also say that earlier this week the Justice Committee took evidence on provisions contained in the UK Government’s Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill. The Scottish Government is seeking to extend, by way of a legislative consent motion, provisions to Scotland that would explicitly make attacks on assistance dogs an aggravated offence under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and would ensure that courts assess the character of the owner in determining whether a dog poses a danger to public safety. That is obviously an important point in relation to guide dogs and other dogs that assist people with disabilities.
The Scottish Government is fully aware of the move towards compulsory microchipping throughout the rest of the UK. We understand that England plans to bring in compulsory microchipping for dogs as part of its wider dog controls in 2016. As others have said, Wales plans to make regulations to ensure that all dogs are microchipped by March 2015.
We are aware that compulsory microchipping has been in force in Northern Ireland since April 2012, after having been made a requirement for obtaining a dog licence under the Dogs (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2011.
At the British Veterinary Association’s annual Scottish dinner in June, my colleague Richard Lochhead made a speech reinforcing the Scottish Government’s commitment to consult on compulsory microchipping and announcing that that would take place by the end of 2013. The precise detail of the timetable has to be identified, but that gives an indication of the timing of the consultation. The consultation is currently being drafted and in it we will seek the views of the Scottish people, Scotland’s local authorities, animal welfare charities and organisations and all other interested parties, particularly on the issue of enforcement and the potential impact of introducing compulsory microchipping in Scotland.
The Scottish Government will continue to work on this issue to the timescale that we have announced and will consider what is best for Scotland before it makes a decision. If we decide to go ahead with compulsory microchipping for all dogs, we would expect to be able to introduce it around the same time as in England.
13:11
Meeting suspended.
14:30
On resuming—