Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 12 September 2013
12 Sep 2013 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Dogs (Compulsory Microchipping)
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
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
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (John Scott)
Con
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...
Claire Baker (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Lab
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 p...
Christine Grahame (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
SNP
On the question of cost, what does it cost for local authorities to keep an up-to-date database?
Claire Baker
Lab
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 i...
Kenneth Gibson (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
SNP
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 commit...
Malcolm Chisholm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Lab
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 ha...
Christine Grahame (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
SNP
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, ...
Claire Baker
Lab
Will the member give way?
Christine Grahame
SNP
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 cons...
Nanette Milne (North East Scotland) (Con)
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...
Fiona McLeod (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
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 speake...
Jenny Marra (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
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 Graham...
The Minister for Environment and Climate Change (Paul Wheelhouse)
SNP
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 ...