Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you, convener. That is very kind. Do you accept, minister, that I have, from the previous bill that I proposed but did not proceed with because of the pressures of Covid, moved from providing for a mandatory regulatory scheme to making it a discretionary chance for the Government to introduce it? That is explained in the explanatory notes. With current inflationary pressures and everything else, I understand that we do not want to burden national or local government, so the scheme is discretionary.

I will move on. I accept that you can have a register, but the bill tries to specify some things in that register. Section 8(3) states:

“The Scottish Ministers may by regulations make provision”.

It is fairly flexible for Government and leaves it in the current context.

I accept the data protection issues, and have thought about all that. The wording of section 8(4)(g) is:

“provision for or in connection with public or other access to registration information”.

Do you accept that the Government has far more resources at hand than I have to consider the legal requirements for a register to give data protection cover, if I can put it in that way, to the transferrer and the transferee?

The only reason that I raised it, convener, is because the minister raised it.

Just to go back to compliance, this is, as we all know, very discretionary—it is not mandatory. For example, section 10(1) says:

“The Scottish Ministers may by regulations make provision for or in connection with securing compliance with regulations”.

Also, you are worried about people inadvertently ending up being caught up in some proceedings, given a fine or something, but section 10(2)(b) recommends that

“That provision may in particular include ... provision for the enforcement other than by way of proceedings for an offence of any provision of the regulations”.

Does the minister accept that, if all that was given was a warning to somebody that they should have had a puppy registered, it could leave things open for somebody masquerading as an innocent person who has been caught out who is actually either being used by criminal gangs or part of a criminal gang?

We must accept that there are options other than by way of proceedings. As I have said, the regulations are for the Government—they are just guidance for it.

My final question is about section 11. You asked how we know that what we are proposing will work. Would you accept that section 11 will improve public awareness and understanding of the relevant regulatory regimes? Its purpose is to ensure that people understand that the supplying of a dog that is less than 12 months old requires

“registration under regulations made under section 8”.

Do you accept that, in the context of the entire bill, the purpose of section 11 is not about raising awareness before registration is required, but about ensuring that, if we were to proceed with registration, the public would be aware that there was a registration scheme and that it would, in a way, be for the public to police it? If someone was not registered, people could check that out.

It would depend on what was on the database. I put it to you that, if there were no registration number, they would not proceed, because it would be a requirement in law that the puppy or dog be registered. They would say, “It’s not registered. What’s that all about?”

On the existing code of practice, although I would dispute that people pay much attention to it, do you accept that, unlike the code of practice in my bill, it does not deal specifically with all the issues that are raised prior to acquiring a dog? I am not talking about issues that come up once someone gets a dog but issues that arise before they even get to that point, which might mean that they might not get one at all.

I just have two more questions, and I am trying to be very pointed about them.

Minister, you referred to section 2(2) as being prescriptive; I will talk specifically to section 2(2)(a). You talked about different breeds of dog. I understand all about the breeds and how difficult it is when they are bred in certain ways, and I do not think that that section is prescriptive. It says:

“is the breed of dog suitable for you ... ?”,

which is very broad. It takes into account any changes in breeding that take place. If breeds come along that are fashionable and that are—to use a term that is perhaps controversial—deformed or have difficulties in breathing, walking or whatever, that is contained in the provision.

The provision asks, as I have said,

“is the breed of dog suitable for you ... ?”,

and it goes on to say:

“recognising that some breeds require more space, exercise and care than others”.

Does that encapsulate the concerns that you have raised about bulldog breeds such as—I can never say the word—Staffordshires and their difficulties with breathing and your point that people should consider all that before they take on such breeds?

I think that section 2(2)(a) is very broad and that it allows for future changes. I am just contesting your evidence.

I will come in again briefly, because this is my only chance to do so. Nobody has mentioned the little certificate that is covered in section 4. Would the minister accept that putting that simple requirement in the bill will provide confirmation that both the person who is transferring the animal and the person who is acquiring it have read and understood the commitments that lie ahead?

I do not want to embarrass the minister, but I advise her that I have agreed with the DPLR Committee that the code can come forward for parliamentary scrutiny. I do not know whether this committee has seen that. It is a shame that you do not have it either, minister, because that issue has already been resolved.

I have no further questions, convener—well, I have a lot more, but I am taking up a lot of time.