Hansard

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 the UK.

I apologise to the Parliament for having to leave the debate early this evening. I am disappointed not to be able to listen to other members’ speeches; I will study the minister’s reply in the Official Report tomorrow.

In September 2013, I held a members’ business debate on microchipping. Kenny Gibson spoke then of his visit to the rehoming centre in his constituency. I have not visited that Dogs Trust centre, but I have spent time at the centre in West Calder, where I discussed microchipping and I saw how easy it is to scan a dog. For the dog owner, microchipping is quick and cheap, and it is potentially even free. The scheme provides multiple benefits, as was highlighted by Mr Gibson in his opening speech. It should result in a reduction in the number of dogs that are abandoned or negligently allowed to stray, as well as enabling quick reunion with the owner.

Although the number of stray dogs in Scotland is reducing, which is to be welcomed, it is still at a significant level. The figures for the last year available, 2012-13, show that Scottish local authorities dealt with 3,525 stray dogs. That involves distress for the dogs and their owners, but also adds a considerable expense to the budgets of local authorities, which have to not only provide a dog warden service, but meet the kennelling costs for up to a week.

Microchipping has the advantage of being an immensely popular proposal with the public. A YouGov poll showed that 82 per cent of adults in Scotland would support its introduction. The measure has already been successfully introduced in Northern Ireland and is due to be introduced in Wales and England in the near future.

When I held my members’ business debate in September 2013, the Scottish Government had yet to confirm its support for the measure: in his closing speech, the Minister for Environment and Climate Change indicated that the Government still had “some concerns” over its introduction. I am therefore delighted that the Government has overcome those concerns and is now minded towards introduction. That is to the credit of campaigners from across the country, led by charities such as Dogs Trust. I am sure that, like me, members across the Parliament have received emails from their constituents expressing support for the introduction of compulsory microchipping. The Government’s journey towards that introduction will have been aided by the campaign. There is evidence that it will be a very positive policy.

Compulsory microchipping is not, however, a measure to tackle dangerous dogs. It is perhaps another tool in the box—it can trace a dog back to its owner and it can help to encourage responsible dog ownership by bringing the owner into contact with services—but it does not itself change the behaviour of dogs or their owners.

The dangerous dogs consultation is disappointing, in that it concerns what I believe is a dog welfare policy, alongside another policy that it would appear no one, including the Government, supports, namely the compulsory muzzling of all dogs. There are legitimate concerns that the introduction of muzzling could have a detrimental impact on the welfare of dogs, as well as reinforcing a negative stereotype of all dogs as dangerous, which is far from the case. Muzzling already plays a part in tackling the issue of dangerous dogs, as long as it is used proportionately. Under the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010, muzzling can be included in a dog control notice. I believe that that has the support of animal welfare charities and should be maintained.

We must acknowledge the reason for the consultation, which is the incidence of dog attacks with tragic consequences. How do we address the problem when the owner is beyond changing their behaviour? I accept arguments around breed and deed, and evidence that shows that many incidents happen in the home, but what more can be done to protect communities, and children in particular, from aggressive dogs with irresponsible owners? Unfortunately, the consultation is limited in that area and, although I welcome microchipping, it is not the answer. We should be open to considering other models of dog control.

Of course, education and training for owners, as well as pets, is key. Kenneth Gibson highlighted the work that Dogs Trust is doing with young offenders. However, let us not kid ourselves that all owners will respond to such training. We must be open to considering measures that could give greater protection to communities from dangerous and out-of-control dogs.

I welcome the measure on compulsory microchipping and look forward to its introduction in Scotland.

17:16