Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 06 May 2014
06 May 2014 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Responsible Dog Ownership
I, too, welcome the debate and congratulate Kenneth Gibson on bringing it to the chamber.
Last summer, I was invited to visit the Dogs Trust rehoming centre in Uddingston. As someone who always had dogs until very recently, it was sad and yet uplifting for me to learn about the number of dogs that are picked up by the trust—more than 4,500 in 2012—and are then all well cared for by the staff and volunteers until they can be rehomed or their owners can be traced. I was also very impressed by the dedicated work of the staff. It was their first-hand accounts of current issues of animal welfare that led to my support for compulsory microchipping.
Compulsory microchipping would go a long way towards helping to reduce the numbers and to improve animal welfare in Scotland. Currently, 40 per cent of reunions between dog and owner are due to microchipping and registration. With a compulsory scheme, more of those cases could be solved. Of course, not every dog that is picked up by local authorities or the Dogs Trust is genuinely lost, and some are found with clear signs of neglect or worse. Compulsory microchipping would help to bring to justice more individuals who are clearly unfit owners. Although, as OneKind noted, microchipping would not on its own protect dogs from neglect and ill treatment, it would help to trace the perpetrators.
I agree with the Dogs Trust and OneKind that proposals to introduce muzzling would be a retrograde step for animal welfare. It would treat the symptom rather than the cause, while at the same time punishing the vast majority of dogs and their owners for the actions of a few. It would suggest that every dog is dangerous and would breed distrust and fear, and there is no evidence that it would reduce dog violence in general.
There are obviously some individual dogs that require muzzling, but there is already a mechanism in place for that. Placing a general requirement on all dogs would be authoritarian and unnecessary, and would not have my support.
Another element of animal welfare that should be considered, and which has not been mentioned, is the suitability of certain breeds for certain lifestyles. On my visit to the Dogs Trust, I saw a large number of active dogs—huskies, malamutes and collies—that had been abandoned or brought to the centre by owners who had realised that they really did not have the time, space, energy or ability to give their pets the exercise that they needed. The Dogs Trust is careful to ensure that every dog that it rehomes is matched to an owner with the capacity, both physical and environmental, to satisfy the dog’s needs. That is another element that we perhaps need to think about.
My hope is that the debate can help to start a conversation in Scotland about responsible dog ownership in all its forms, and that the benefits of compulsory microchipping, as well as the case against muzzling, are recognised and taken on board.
17:47
Last summer, I was invited to visit the Dogs Trust rehoming centre in Uddingston. As someone who always had dogs until very recently, it was sad and yet uplifting for me to learn about the number of dogs that are picked up by the trust—more than 4,500 in 2012—and are then all well cared for by the staff and volunteers until they can be rehomed or their owners can be traced. I was also very impressed by the dedicated work of the staff. It was their first-hand accounts of current issues of animal welfare that led to my support for compulsory microchipping.
Compulsory microchipping would go a long way towards helping to reduce the numbers and to improve animal welfare in Scotland. Currently, 40 per cent of reunions between dog and owner are due to microchipping and registration. With a compulsory scheme, more of those cases could be solved. Of course, not every dog that is picked up by local authorities or the Dogs Trust is genuinely lost, and some are found with clear signs of neglect or worse. Compulsory microchipping would help to bring to justice more individuals who are clearly unfit owners. Although, as OneKind noted, microchipping would not on its own protect dogs from neglect and ill treatment, it would help to trace the perpetrators.
I agree with the Dogs Trust and OneKind that proposals to introduce muzzling would be a retrograde step for animal welfare. It would treat the symptom rather than the cause, while at the same time punishing the vast majority of dogs and their owners for the actions of a few. It would suggest that every dog is dangerous and would breed distrust and fear, and there is no evidence that it would reduce dog violence in general.
There are obviously some individual dogs that require muzzling, but there is already a mechanism in place for that. Placing a general requirement on all dogs would be authoritarian and unnecessary, and would not have my support.
Another element of animal welfare that should be considered, and which has not been mentioned, is the suitability of certain breeds for certain lifestyles. On my visit to the Dogs Trust, I saw a large number of active dogs—huskies, malamutes and collies—that had been abandoned or brought to the centre by owners who had realised that they really did not have the time, space, energy or ability to give their pets the exercise that they needed. The Dogs Trust is careful to ensure that every dog that it rehomes is matched to an owner with the capacity, both physical and environmental, to satisfy the dog’s needs. That is another element that we perhaps need to think about.
My hope is that the debate can help to start a conversation in Scotland about responsible dog ownership in all its forms, and that the benefits of compulsory microchipping, as well as the case against muzzling, are recognised and taken on board.
17:47
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (John Scott)
Con
The final item of business is a debate on motion S4M-09752, in the name of Kenneth Gibson, on microchipping and muzzling. The debate will be concluded withou...
Kenneth Gibson (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
SNP
I thank the members who signed the motion and made this debate possible. I also thank Dogs Trust, the Kennel Club and OneKind Charity for their briefings and...
Claire Baker (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Lab
I start by thanking Kenny Gibson for securing the debate. I thank Dogs Trust for all its work campaigning for compulsory microchipping in Scotland and across...
Christine Grahame (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
SNP
I, too, congratulate the member on securing the debate, which is a bit of a reprise of the debate that Claire Baker secured last September, in which I also t...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
Mr Q has been giving your remarks his full attention. I now call Christine Grahame—sorry, Alex Fergusson, to be followed by Malcolm Chisholm.17:20
Alex Fergusson (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Con
Christine Grahame once in the debate is quite enough, Presiding Officer.I join other members in congratulating Kenny Gibson and Dogs Trust on enabling the de...
Malcolm Chisholm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Lab
I congratulate Kenny Gibson on securing the debate. I think that it is our third debate on dogs in the past few months—my colleagues Paul Martin and Claire B...
Christine Grahame
SNP
Will Malcolm Chisholm take an intervention?
Malcolm Chisholm
Lab
I do not think that I have time; I am in my last minute.
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
You can take back the time.
Christine Grahame
SNP
I simply remind Malcolm Chisholm that bad though attacks in public areas are, most really bad attacks take place on private land and in homes, so leads would...
Malcolm Chisholm
Lab
We cannot solve all the problems with one measure, but if we could solve the problem in public places, it would certainly make the lives of many of my and, I...
Graeme Dey (Angus South) (SNP)
SNP
I begin by paying tribute to the Dogs Trust. All too often we MSPs are approached by organisations promoting an approach that they wish the Government to ado...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
Due to the number of members who still wish to speak in the debate, I am minded to accept a motion without notice to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes.Mo...
Elaine Murray (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Lab
I congratulate Kenny Gibson on securing the debate. I had some concerns about the wording of the last part of his motion, which I will refer to later, but he...
Joan McAlpine (South Scotland) (SNP)
SNP
I, too, congratulate my colleague Kenny Gibson on securing the debate. I am also grateful for the briefings from the Dogs Trust and OneKind that have helped ...
Jean Urquhart (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Ind
I, too, welcome the debate and congratulate Kenneth Gibson on bringing it to the chamber.Last summer, I was invited to visit the Dogs Trust rehoming centre i...
Dennis Robertson (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
SNP
Like other members, I congratulate both Kenneth Gibson and the Dogs Trust on bringing the debate to the chamber. My contribution to the debate is, I hope, as...
Paul Martin (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
Lab
Like others, I congratulate Kenny Gibson on his very thoughtful speech and on promoting the good work of the Dogs Trust. Indeed, I have visited my local Dogs...
The Minister for Environment and Climate Change (Paul Wheelhouse)
SNP
I thank my colleague Kenneth Gibson for lodging the motion for this evening’s debate and the other colleagues who have contributed so ably to it. It is proba...