Seòmar agus comataidhean

We know that there will be some additional costs, but we would just be plucking figures from thin air, and I will not do that.

As I say, in the general picture of things, we are well aware of the costs—as well as the potential benefits—for local authorities. However, this is not the time—this year or next year—to burden them with additional costs when they have so much to deal with.

Yes.

That could be the case, but it is less likely. It might be that the person acquiring the dog is physically unable to go and sends someone in their place to see it. That is understandable. If somebody is highly disabled, somebody else can go for them and check it out, but, in the vast majority of cases, the person should see the puppy with the siblings and the mother, unless there are particular circumstances—I hesitate to use the word “exceptional”, but something close to that. In the main, the person must see the mother.

That is because we have got so used to things being online, and that increased during Covid. We get our messages and our shoes online. Some people get their car online, and it is now relatively common for people to buy animals, including puppies, online. The difference is that a puppy is a sentient being. The car can fall apart and it is the owner’s fault but, with the puppy, you are responsible for the welfare of the animal from the moment that it is bred, not just the moment that you acquire it. That is what the bill is getting at. Our culture has changed, but we must reverse that when we are dealing with sentient beings such as animals.

I think that I made that clear. Some people acquire puppies directly from the unlicensed breeder. I thought that I was dealing with a possible loophole, although it might not always be a loophole. Somebody might acquire a puppy from an unlicensed breeder, keep it for a bit and then transfer it to somebody else, perhaps because they cannot cope with it or for other motives. The 12-month deadline is in the bill so that they will still have obligations if they do that.

I do not want to focus only on online sales, but let us say that there will be cute little puppies online. There will be other dogs as well that might be six or seven months old and have already been with somebody other than the unlicensed breeder. The same obligations exist, so that is why I took it up to 12 months. As you can see from the bill, there are different rules for the first unlicensed breeder from those for people those who sell dogs up to 12 months old.

Claudia Bennett, do you want to comment?

They could not fill it in, because they would not have checked. They would not have been able to see the puppy with its mother and daddy. None of that would have happened; that is the point. Many people think that they are rescuing dogs when, in fact, it is a business—a European business or a business in southern Ireland, in the main.

That is what I have to overcome. It is a good question, because those people are not rescuing a dog; they are buying a product that criminals are breeding. If someone takes that puppy, another six will appear in its place, at £2,500 to £3,000 each.

First of all, I am hopeful that, in the initial stages, the certificate would reduce the need to publicise or run public awareness campaigns about the illegal puppy trade. The point is to provide education in order to change public behaviour. We should let the public do the job of achieving what we all want, which is an end to the illegal puppy trade, the distress that happens and people getting puppies for the wrong reasons. I hope that the certificate will do that.

Publicity campaigns on various issues are already running and telling people that they should not buy this or that, but those are not working. The situation is getting worse, in that more people are buying puppies online and then abandoning them and so on. By having a campaign on acquisition, we are going back to the key message. The problems start when people first get puppies. I hope that, if we start there, we will decrease the requirement for subsequent messages such as “A dog is for life, not just for Christmas”, which is the famous one.

It is not voluntary in that sense. Section 4 says:

“Before acquiring the dog, the prospective acquirer is to complete a certificate”.

It says “is to complete”, not “may complete”, so completing the certificate is mandatory.

There are too many people who, for good reasons, do not reflect before they acquire animals. We see that in the number that are being abandoned and in the vast criminal puppy trade. It can cost £2,500 for a puppy that has been brought here, often in dreadful and desperate conditions.

Earlier, I talked about the purpose of the bill—it is to ensure that people think twice. A person will have to complete a certificate relating to the matters mentioned in section 4(4)—they have to go through all that. They have to think twice, thrice or four times before they maybe say at the end of that, “Yes, I do want to get a dog, but I had better not get that breed,” or, “I’ve got to go and see it with its mother and not buy online.” There is a huge increase in the online selling of little teddy bear puppies and very popular dogs, and often the results are puppies that are poorly bred and poorly trained and that come from really bad sources. It is about all-round good-egg stuff for the animal and the person who is getting it.

The major onus is on suppliers, as many of them are in business—some are not, but most of them are. There would be a duty on the Scottish Government to publicise the proposed code. There is also the certificate, which will require a change in engagement. We rarely say to people that, if they have read a code or the legislation, they need to sign something saying that they have read and understood it.

Engagement should be a process of saying, “You’re part of this.” Part of the issue that I want the public to understand is that they are the custodians and are policing the welfare of Scotland’s puppies and young dogs that come into the system. I go back to the fact that demand will change the nature of supply. My expectation is that informed demand—it is a horrible expression—will mean that the puppies that come through the system will change. People will say, “Wait a minute. I have seen the puppy online. I know that I can’t take it. I’m not supposed to do this. I don’t know who this person is.”

Alternatively, they might see somebody at a market who has some puppies in their van. The trouble is that people think that they are rescuing animals, but they are not. If you see a puppy in a distressed state with its big eyes and you think, “I’ll take it,” all that happens is that, in the conveyor belt of these factory farms, some bitch is being put through the system to produce more puppies. By signing the certificate, you become part of regulating and part of the system.

I think that that is good for owners. I get quite emotional about this because, due to my lifestyle, I cannot have a dog. I have gone through those tests myself and said, “I can’t do this,” because I have the cat and I am not there and all those things, including my age, which has to be taken into account. People have to go through that process and say to themselves, “I’ll be hard.” If they must, there are other ways of enjoying the company of dogs, such as fostering or going into pet shelters to take them for walks, but maybe it is not right for them to have a dog.

What distresses me is that, in the six years that I have been working on the issue, the system has got worse. If it had not got worse, I would have packed it in. I would not need to be arguing for change—I could leave it to the Government—but the point is that the Government has not changed the existing code. By introducing the bill and pushing the Government to put a new code through, we move the dial—to use that horrible expression.