Hansard

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 debate to take place. I find myself in a troubled situation because I have just listened to Kenny Gibson and have—probably for the first time ever—agreed with every word that he said. What troubles me more than that is that I listened to Rob Gibson in a previous debate and, uniquely I think, agreed with every single word that he said. Graeme Dey put it to me that if I keep going like this, I might find myself agreeing with the back benchers of that party on a question that they will be asking in September. Let me put it firmly on the record: “No. I won’t.” I am sorry if that brings disappointment.

This is an important debate. Even if it is a reprise of a previous debate, I am glad that it has been brought back and I congratulate Kenny Gibson on bringing it back. I start on the issue of muzzling. In the motion, we are asked to express concern at the prospect of muzzling. I want to do more than express concern about it. I want to state that I would utterly and completely oppose the proposal. I find it totally ridiculous. It goes completely against nature and would, in some cases, be tantamount to cruelty for some dogs.

Dogs need to be able to lick, smell and snuffle—if that is a proper word—or, to put it more politically correctly, to exercise their natural behaviour patterns. Muzzling would prevent them from doing so. If I was a cynic, I would say that it is almost a straw man option. I think that only one question in the consultation referred to muzzling, while some 30 referred to microchipping. Whatever the reason it was in the consultation, I hope that it is there to be taken out, because it is quite clear that, apart from some individuals, no one really supports the proposal. I cannot support it either.

I come to the more robust proposal about microchipping. Without repeating all the arguments that have been made, I can see nothing but plusses in the proposal. It would increase responsibility and accountability. It would certainly improve the traceability of dogs that have been abandoned or lost. It is one of those proposals for which the time is right, full stop, and I would not argue against it.

I will raise one concern, however. I am interested that Elaine Murray is here and I hope that I am not about to pinch one of her arguments. She will be as aware as I am that in Dumfries and Galloway we have a particular problem with greyhounds being abandoned. The dogs are largely of Irish origin, the logic being that the A75, which brings people from Ireland, is a handy dropping-off point for unwanted greyhounds. It is not a small problem. Dumfriesshire and Cumbria Greyhound Rescue is a rehoming charity that has rehoused 1,000 such animals in the past decade.

Racing greyhounds are identified by tattooed marks in their ears. In far too many cases, the dogs’ ears have been mutilated and sometimes even cut off before they have been abandoned in order to ensure that they are not traced back to their roots. The reason that I raised that in regard to microchipping is that yesterday I emailed Libby Anderson—formerly of the Scottish SPCA and now of OneKind—and asked her whether she had any information on how easy or difficult it is to remove microchips after they have been put in place. She said that

“it is universally acknowledged that microchips cannot be removed or tampered with, without surgical intervention.”

I simply want to raise a concern about the prospect that unscrupulous people, who want to abandon their dogs, will try to get rid of the microchip in a horrible DIY surgical intervention, which I suggest would involve no anaesthetic whatever. I worry about that prospect. While it is certainly not a concern that would make me oppose the proposal, it is one that we need to be aware of as we move forward with this programme.

17:25