Chamber and committees

That is a very interesting question—of course, I cannot answer it because I am not privy to all the papers, but that is why it is entirely apposite for the minister to commit to amendment 59, which would require the Government to action something within three years. I struggle, as I sit here, to understand why he is reticent to do so—

Yes, I will.

The minister is reticent about preparing the way for a change to the 2016 legislation on microchipping.

Of course I will allow you in, Ms Harper.

Do you know how depressing that is for me? I sat on the predecessor committee in 2018 when it recommended that poorly sited fish farms should be relocated to take away the threat in relation to their production from high mortality levels and their effect on wild fish where the farms are sited on existing migratory routes, and now you are telling me that, six years later, that has not been implemented. Would you be depressed?

I will give way in just a minute, minister.

If the Scottish Government is going to change the 2016 legislation on microchipping to create one central database, that will require subordinate legislation, minister, and I would be very surprised if the committee that considered that did not look at whether you had carried out any consultation.

I give way to the minister.

Before I go any further, I remind members of my entry in the members’ register of interests. I am a farmer and part of a farming partnership. I am also a dog owner and have recently registered puppies. I am an honorary member of the British Veterinary Association.

I will speak to amendment 59 and I will move it for three really good reasons, which I am sure that everyone will find easy to support. First, what I have proposed is good for dogs and their welfare. It would also allow the Government to carry out some post-legislative scrutiny, and it would help to address the issue of dog theft, which is subject to a separate bill that another member has proposed.

I am sure that I do not need to remind the minister that the rules for microchipping were introduced in 2016. Now, eight years on, we do not know whether microchipping works. There is a requirement to microchip a puppy at eight weeks, and owners are supposed to update the information when a dog is moved, an owner changes their address or telephone number, or the dog is sold or given to another owner. We are pretty sure that that does not happen across the country. There are thousands of strays every year that are not properly recorded on a database. I am sure that the minister will say that there are 12 properly accredited databases in Scotland, which he would be right about, and there are 22 databases across the United Kingdom. Which database is being checked, which one is being kept up to date, and which is the proper one to use?

When we are farming, we have a simple situation: we have ScotEID, where we record our animals on a database and every animal has a passport. We know where the animals are and we know their history. Now, the Government has produced a poultry register. If you have one chicken at home that is scratching around your door, you must register it and record it on a database that the Government keeps. Everyone in the countryside is used to doing that with animals and we also do it if we have a car, because we have a responsibility to keep the V5C up to date and to record any changes.

I suggest that the Government should think carefully about its 2016 legislation and should consider whether it is working. I have asked the Government to review it and to check whether microchipping and the database are working properly and I have said that it should consult breeders, acquirers and owners of dogs as well as consulting veterinary practitioners.

I know that it is a step too far for some people, but I believe that vets should check dogs that come into their practice to ensure that they are properly microchipped and that the person who has brought the dog in is the correct owner. That might be a step too far for now, but I believe that it should come in due course.

Amendment 59 is a simple one. It puts an onus on the Government to check that the legislation that it brought in in 2016 is working correctly, is effective and is doing what it is meant to do, which is to look after the welfare of dogs. I do not see what people dislike about that, but I suspect that the minister is going to tell me.

I move amendment 59.

Thank you, convener. Yes, I do. I would like to remind members that I have an interest in a wild salmon fishery on the River Spey, which is on the east coast of Scotland. It is not affected by fish farms along the east coast, and it employs three full-time people. I think that that has probably covered it. Any other details that anyone wants are in my entry in the register of members’ interests.

We should all be thankful that the 14.5 million chickens that are in Scotland are not all kept individually on farms or at separate locations. On the other hand, there are only 680,000 dogs in Scotland, so having a database of them would make it easy to record and keep track of them.

I am absolutely surprised that the minister does not want to find out what we are talking about when it comes to having a central UK database.

I hear what you say, Ms Harper, and I am disappointed to note that.

I have made my case on why amendment 59 is good for dogs, good for the welfare of dogs, good for the Government and good for puppies. As a final comment, convener, I find it interesting that there are approved databases in Scotland that we can use—that vets in Scotland will use—

It is up to the convener.