Seòmar agus comataidhean

I do not remember it, so you might have to repeat it. [Laughter.]

The point is that the current system is not working. It is quite common for people to know about puppy factory farms, but the fact that puppies are being sent back and dogs are being abandoned tells us that we are not having the proper effect. The code is simple. It is to educate people and make them realise that they are not rescuing a puppy—they are creating more misery for more puppies.

As I said, those are the fundamental questions to ask when you are buying a dog. The list is not complete; it is open to the Government, within the ambit of those questions, to have additional questions, if it wishes to do so. However, those are the very straightforward questions and I put them in the bill, as a direction to the Government, to ensure that those particular questions go into the code.

Too much of legislation is complex. When we are asking the public, rather than lawyers, to operate within legislation, it has to be easily understood, and I think that the questions that I have put in the bill, because I want them in the code, are easily understood. They are not complicated for people, but it is important that they are used. There is scope for the Government to include other information, but it should not go beyond that kind of ambit. Those questions are absolutely vital to the code as it has been constructed.

You can look at the questions in the bill, which I am now digging out. They are in straightforward English. For example, one asks:

“Is the breed of dog suitable for you and your family?”

That is an important question. The bill asks if the environment is suitable. If you live six floors up and you want to get a great big dog that needs a lot of exercise, that is not a good idea, because the lift might break. Those are simple things.

The bill asks:

“would the dog fit in with the composition of the household?”

Do you have a baby on the way? Is it a good time to get a dog? Do you have a lot of young children? What breed should you have? The bill also asks if you can afford

“the costs associated with keeping the dog”,

such as food and bedding. As I said in my opening statement, very few people think about that. Getting a dog is an emotional thing, so people do not consider the costs that lie ahead. Believe you me, when you walk into the vet, you either need insurance for the dog or a big pocketful of money, because it is expensive.

Another question in the bill is:

“are you committed to caring for the dog?”

The puppy that starts off as a toddler in your house becomes a naughty adolescent tearing things to bits. You are going to have it for 10 or 15 years. Your life will move on. Are you ready to take that dog with you?

Those are not complicated questions, but I think that they are the sort of questions that the public will understand and that will educate them. They will not be offended by them. You must have the public on your side.

There can be stage 2 amendments. After long consultation, I tried to keep the bill as uncluttered as possible for the prime purpose of enabling somebody who is acquiring a puppy to have second or third thoughts. I think that the bill delivers that. Other matters could then come in. You have raised microchipping—I am delighted that you have—but I think that that would come under part 2, where I was looking for registration to assist people acquiring puppies and the suppliers.

If we could have, even if not immediately, a national microchip database to which we can add information—because, as you know, many companies move from one place to another and nobody knows where they are—that would be great. If the bill moves that forward, I will be content that part 2 goes, subject to what the Government has to say about microchipping.

First of all, I know that situation. My own dog—my Irish setter—came from a gamekeeper at Twynholm. He kept two puppies and the rest were sold as pets. I therefore understand those circumstances.

Let us look at the definition of a pet. The Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (Scotland) Regulations 2021 say that a

“‘pet’ means an animal kept permanently, or intended to be kept permanently, by a person mainly for—(a) personal interest, (b) companionship”—

I do not know about this one—

“(c) ornamental purposes”—

whatever that is—

“or (d) any combination of (a) to (c)”.

A working dog could have a litter and one of that litter could become a pet. That would come under the legislation, as they would then be transferred.

That is where the 12-month thing comes in. It might take a few months to decide that a dog will not have pups because it does not have the attributes to work on a farm. The dog would then become a transferee, so it would come under the legislation. That is obvious, and it is commonplace. It could apply to a gamekeeper’s dog or a guide dog. I have sponsored a number of guide dog pups; perhaps it is something to do with my sponsoring them, but only two have succeeded and have become guide dogs. The other two have become pets, so they would come under the legislation.

I notice that the minister suggested that the scheme is not workable, not a proportionate response, might not improve animal welfare, could provide unwarranted assurance to buyers and could provide a front for those selling puppies in the illegal puppy trade. I know that the Government intends to amend the bill to take out that part, should the bill proceed to stage 2, but it would, to me, be doing a disservice to the stakeholders with whom I have worked and who support the registration provisions, because of the benefits that they believe a register of unlicensed litters would bring, if I did not continue to highlight the benefits of implementing this part of the bill—notwithstanding the Government’s position.

As I have said, should it be the position of members of the committee that they would support the general principles of the bill if part 2 were to be removed, I would strongly encourage them to consider the clear need to have some means of ensuring the traceability of puppies and to seek an assurance from the Government at stage 2 that progress would be made in that regard. I am, of course, alluding to a national microchipping database.

The minister mentioned the legal requirement for all dogs to be microchipped, and a central register of microchipped dogs would provide traceability and the other benefits associated with the registration scheme that I propose. That would be an alternative to part 2 of the bill. I hope that members have seen my letter to the minister regarding that. As I have already said, I have always felt passionate about the need to make best use of the legal requirement to microchip puppies, and I have promoted the clear associated benefits for a long time. People would be able to check whether a puppy was on the national microchipping register.

I want a registration scheme but, if a registration scheme was not acceptable to the committee, I would not want the bill at stage 1 to be sabotaged—I do not mean sabotaged; I mean fall by the wayside—because of that.

Obviously, I want a registration scheme. However, I say to Ariane Burgess that the approach would be discretionary. Importantly, the bill says:

“The Scottish ministers may by regulations prohibit the first owner”

from selling or advertising litters that are not subject to registration. The key word there is “may”. I am leaving the Scottish Government some flexibility to act at a suitable time, because I accept the economic pressures that are being placed on the Government and local authorities. I have to be realistic, because the bill’s primary purpose—I will bore you by repeating it—is to educate. Acquiring registration is an important part of that, and I am pleased that you support it. I put in that section of the bill because I think that registration is important, but, if push comes to shove and there is a push to cross-reference microchipping, I can see a way forward to satisfy us that there will be some traceability of puppies and dogs in Scotland. It may not be the best solution, but it is part of a solution.

The landscape would be more cluttered if the code were to be absorbed into what exists. I am decluttering the landscape.

What is the big issue? What is the biggest problem when people start to look after a dog as a pet? The problem starts from the moment that a person gets it. If a person gets the wrong pet in the wrong circumstances for the wrong reasons and they have not seen it with its mother, they will have problems from the start. Instead of dealing with welfare issues once people have a pet, we should really deal with them in advance of that.

On top of that, the legislation would require people to self-certify with the person who is transferring the dog to them. That person also has a job to do in that they have to say that they think that the buyer is the right person. A licensed breeder will do that in that a good one will check the buyer’s circumstances and will not let any Tom, Dick or Harry—it is not politically correct to say that, so I will say Tom, Dickess and Harry—get a dog.

People cannot just go into a rehoming centre such as the SSPCA and get a cat or dog. The centre will check the person’s circumstances and will not let them have an animal if it thinks they are the wrong person. That is the level at which a person who is not licensed and who is transferring a pet to someone will operate. The buyer will be involved in the conversation and, importantly, as far as is humanly practicable, will see that puppy with its siblings and mother. That will tell them an awful lot about how the animal has been brought up.

The certificate will say, “I’ve thought about all of that.” People might not always get it right, but it will mean that they pause to think about it. I am sure that anyone who is sitting around this table who was thinking of getting a puppy would do that. However, that is not the case for many people, for very good reason, as was highlighted during Covid. The bill will make sure that they would do what all of us here would do.

Yes. Actually, it was the SSPCA that brought the French certificate to my attention. It is not necessarily about prosecution or taking a dog away; it could simply be a matter of educating. We must look at that as something additional to what the SSPCA has.

As I have said, the thrust of the approach is not punitive; the thrust is getting people to educate themselves. When I introduced the original bill proposal six years ago, things were bad enough, but they have got worse. I hope that focusing on that at the beginning will mean a happy outcome for people who want the comfort of a pet dog and that it will also deal with online sales in which people do not know where the pet is coming from or the state that it is in.

The code is more than that; it is a case of a simple focused thing. I have already addressed in my opening statement the issue of the code being absorbed into the general codes. It would get lost in translation. I wanted to focus on the purchasing and acquiring of puppies in an uninformed fashion, which has been ancillary to an increase in puppy factory farms. That was not the only issue, but it was part of the issue. By making a simple code, we are dealing with a different cohort of people—people who, for good reason, want the company of a pet. We are making them focus on that. I hope that, with the code, the nature of the unlicensed puppy trade—if I may loosely call it that—will be changed.