Seòmar agus comataidhean

One of the issues is the self-employed. It is different if there is an employer, because an employer has a duty of care, so he or she, or the company, has a liability. The issue is where self-employed people might be trying to cut costs—which I understand—when they take on jobs. Like my man on his ladder, they might think, “Well, I’ll just do it, because the scaffolding would put another big bill on it.” How do we get through to the self-employed, who might also not be reporting what happens to them?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect to the app, but I would have voted no.

I was interested to hear the minister’s response to Fergus Ewing regarding businesses. In the interests of making progress, I invite the minister to visit Dryden Aqua in my constituency, which has never previously been visited. It is a profitable and eco-friendly glass recycling company that grinds down bottles into particles to replace sand filters in, for example, swimming pools, thereby significantly reducing chlorine oxidation. There are existing glass recycling facilities in Scotland; the minister could visit those first.

Heaven forfend Dr Allan would offend me. I will come to that point.

The evidence that was provided to the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee reflects the value of educating and changing the behaviour of buyers, improving it and, as a result, changing the demand and buying practices of the public. That would have a positive impact, preventing so many of the notable problems that I have just highlighted and of which I am sure members are aware. Reduced demand affects supply.

One of the key questions that came up during stage 1 evidence taking, which the committee deliberated on, is why we need a separate new code when there is an existing code on dog ownership. The code in the bill serves a very different purpose from that of the existing code. It will have a very different appearance, given its distinct purpose, and it applies to a different group of people. It has a new certificate and associated process attached to it.

The current code, which relates to someone who already has a dog, runs to 28 pages, with additional web links. If I was being naughty I might call it “War and Peace”—but I am not naughty. However, I wonder how many dog owners even know it exists, let alone read it. The code under the bill applies to people who are considering acquiring a dog, and it would do three key things. It would redirect people from owning a dog if they realised that they could not afford one; it would help people to take more time to identify the right breed for them; and it would help people to assess the situation in which the puppy is being sold, so that they see warning signs that something is amiss. The briefest consideration of those questions will give pause for thought—no “paws” pun intended—in particular for those buying a puppy through online sales. That will prompt lots of valuable pauses for thought—about the cost and the breed, questioning why it is not possible to see the mother with the puppy, and so on—as will asking people to sign the certificate and to confirm that they understand the need to retain it and to have read the code.

I emphasise the importance of the certificate under the bill. It seeks to ensure that anyone buying a dog will reflect on those questions and others, prompting them to educate themselves further before making a choice. The certificate is based on a process that is followed in France, where, as of 2022, a certificate is required when someone buys a dog or any other number of animals. My certificate, like a French certificate, will require the provider and the acquirer to sign it, so that they both know what they are doing. I thank, in particular, Mike Flynn, who brought that to my attention.

I will move on very quickly and touch on other matters. I have only eight minutes, I believe.

I hope that Mr Smyth accepts that it is difficult to get into those complexities in a member’s bill. However, there are references in my bill to existing animal welfare legislation, which will apply if there are issues of cruelty. The lack of—or evidence of—a certificate will be part of ensuring, if necessary, a prosecution.

I will comment on one or two of the contributions that have been made in the debate. I have already responded to some points in my interventions. On the types of dog that the bill should apply to, my initial preference was for the code and the certificate to apply only to dogs that are intended to be pets. As I said, however, the committee’s scrutiny has highlighted a potential loophole. On that basis, I am seriously considering amending the bill at stage 2 so that the code and the certificate will cover all dogs.

On publicity, which Ariane Burgess raised, I could not agree more with the committee’s clear view that the public awareness that accompanies the bill will be vital. I have pressed the Government for years to show the same serious commitment to publicity for members’ bills that it shows for its own bills. That is why I have estimated funding for a sizeable initial campaign and then follow-up work in future years to raise awareness. After all, the Parliament passes members’ bills just as it passes Government bills. They all become acts of the Scottish Parliament and they all deserve to be treated equally.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. As one of the culprits, I apologise.

I welcome today’s debate and the progress that it represents. To members who came into Parliament just this session, I say that I have been working with a wide range of organisations on the policy in the Welfare of Dogs (Scotland) Bill for the past seven years—it seems longer. I genuinely welcome the valuable work of the lead committee and the constructive series of recommendations that it has produced as a result of its scrutiny of the bill. It gave me food for thought and did its job well.

I will focus on a number of those recommendations later but, first, I want to talk about why the bill is needed. Many moons ago, there was a song called “(How Much Is) That Doggie in the Window?” which went:

“How much is that doggie in the window?
The one with the waggly tail ...
I do hope that doggie's for sale”—

I will not sing it. The sale of puppies in pet shop windows has long been banned—but has it? Windows have changed to Microsoft Windows and the internet, and the understandable impulse to acquire a puppy or young dog has remained—indeed, if anything, the pandemic increased that demand, for reasons that, quite frankly, I fully understand.

My second preliminary point is that the proposed legislation is not to punish or blame but to educate. We would agree that there is a surge in the level of dog ownership across Scotland combined with a lack of an informed approach from the public to buying a dog. With criminals always alert to demand and profitable opportunities, there has been a rise in unscrupulous breeding through, for example, puppy factory farming, where puppies and breeding bitches are kept in appalling conditions—unsocialised and often very sick—then marketed as expensive, desirable commodities.

Purchasers who are unaware of the reality behind the cute online images pay thousands, and the conveyor belt of misery continues. Purchasers might even have bought a puppy to “save” it—they might save that puppy but not the next or the next. Despite worthy endeavours by the Government and animal welfare agencies, illegal breeding and heart-over-head, casual purchases from unscrupulous suppliers continue. I consider that the issue might best be attacked by addressing demand.

Some six years or more ago, I had a similar bill ready for the off when the pandemic put everything on hold for two years. The pandemic only emphasised to me the need for my bill.

Referencing the illegal trade, extracts of evidence from key stakeholders who support my bill demonstrate the scale of the issue. The Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals estimates that the illegal puppy trade is worth £13 million. Animal Trust has highlighted the huge rise in problems that have arisen from people buying dogs that they cannot properly look after, including the fact that abandonment rates continue to rise, with 96 per cent of rehoming centres reporting an increase in behavioural issues.

Battersea Dogs and Cats Home found that only 5 to 10 per cent of puppies across the United Kingdom are coming from licensed breeders, who should ensure healthy puppies and appropriate new owners. Up to 95 per cent of puppies are bought from unlicensed sellers.

Calls to a helpline run by the Scottish SPCA on giving up pets have quadrupled, with costs, vet care and inappropriate living conditions cited as common reasons. A recent survey found that only 29 per cent of people considered cost when they got their pet. Dogs are the most frequently abandoned animal, and rehoming centres are experiencing incredible financial pressures as a result.

Evidence from the Dogs Trust is among the weight of support for the bill that was received by the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee. Its submission describes the purpose of the bill as

“educating and providing prospective dog owners with the tools to purchase or rehome a dog more responsibly, and to identify and avoid unscrupulous breeding practices.”

Thank you very much.

Part 2 seeks to establish a register of unlicensed litters, and I remain passionately committed to the policy behind that proposal. At present, given the lack of any licensing regime for those who do not register as licensed breeders—there is legislation for that—there is no way of tracing where each puppy sold in Scotland comes from, which enables unscrupulous breeders to continue to sell large numbers of puppies outwith the licence system.

The intention behind part 2 is to improve traceability. Any dog that is being sold or transferred in Scotland needs to be on a searchable database. That would enable the public to take informed decisions when sourcing a puppy, and it would aid enforcement, making puppies sold outwith either regime—including through the illegal puppy trade—far easier to identify.

However, I am realistic about the difficult financial environment in which we are operating, and I know that local authorities are under immense resource pressures. I firmly believe that a thoroughly implemented register, brought in at a time when resources are less sparse, would have been beneficial. However, as the committee knows from stage 1 evidence, I have conceded that it might be better to actively pursue another approach to improving traceability, by which I mean taking forward the long-standing need to make progress with the microchipping regime.

A solution to traceability that does not require further legislation would be the ability to trace all dogs through the microchipping system, which I will say more about later. Progress in this area is long overdue. Given the benefits that the bill would deliver and the scale of the urgency of the problem, I welcome comments from the minister on plans to engage with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on microchipping and on getting work moving on the solution. On the basis that that valuable work will happen, I am content to support the Scottish Government’s proposal to remove part 2 of my bill, with the caveat that I want there to be progress on a microchipping portal.

I very much look forward to hearing the speeches in the debate, which I am sure will be robust, and I will respond to as many points as I can in my closing remarks.

In the first few days after a person is discharged from a psychiatric ward, they are at their most vulnerable to suicide. I understand that there is a requirement that within 72 hours of discharge they be visited by a mental health nurse. It is difficult to deliver that for a Friday discharge, given the Monday deadline, especially in rural areas such as my constituency where there are long distances to be covered. Will the First Minister advise whether, in such circumstances, there is any flexibility to be practicable in complying with such a requirement, such as by providing online contact initially?

I would resist being more breed specific, because that would start to clutter up the rather simple questions with regard to the breed. If someone considers the breed, they will obviously look at what is required, whether it has any particular problems with breathing and so on. We should not start to put too much in—I want to keep things simple and direct.