Seòmar agus comataidhean

The code relates to the time of the transfer of the dog. Microchipping relates to part 2, which is on a registration system. Microchipping would not be in the code.

Section 5, on revision of the code, says

“The Scottish Ministers may revise the code of practice as it has effect for the time being.”

They can revise the code.

There might be circumstances in which a puppy cannot be seen with its mother, and I allow for those. The 2021 regulations set out a number of circumstances. They say:

“A puppy may only be shown to a prospective purchaser if it is together with its biological mother.”

However, that does not apply if the

“separation of the puppy from its biological mother is necessary for the health or welfare of the puppy”

or that of

“other puppies from the same litter or”—

and this is the circumstance to which you referred—

“the puppy’s biological mother is deceased.”

We can see the reasons why it would not be practicable, but they are already in regulations.

I am not forcing it.

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.

First, there is a requirement to publicise, which Governments do not always do with members’ bills. Although they have said that they might do that with previous bills, they have not done so. It should also be repeat publicity. You can see that in the financial memorandum, which sets out the cost of a publicity campaign and of reinvigorating it. To me, that underlines the simplicity of the code and why it is understandable. It shows people some things that they have to consider and be aware of.

If the Government agrees to the legislation and we have public awareness campaigns, I hope that those start with images of what happens when the tests are not applied. The puppies have behavioural issues from being crammed into crates with lots of different breeds and unscrupulously sold for a fortune. The people who buy them are not rescuing them. The campaigns need to help us, the various welfare organisations, local authorities and everyone else who is involved with the issue to prevent the wrongful breeding of puppies.

To the best of my knowledge, the Government was content with the costs. Those are the gross costs of raising public awareness. When we offset the costs that are difficult to quantify as net costs, which are not only those to the public purse but the costs to welfare organisations of coping with the fallout from animals that have been abandoned, are in a state of distress or have behavioural issues, we are looking—

There are also licensed litters, but we will set that aside, because we are talking about unlicensed litters.

Any advert for a puppy or young dog would need to include a registration number for the dog from a licensed breeder or from an unlicensed owner. I envisage that that will provide reassurance for someone acquiring a dog, as they would know that the breeder or owner is compliant with all the regimes relating to the selling of puppies.

Again, that would require the public to be aware of the new system, in which every advert has a number for one or two regimes. The bill provides for awareness raising, and I envisage that that would need to be done on a rolling basis, not just as a one-off.

The creation of the registration requirement would mean that all puppies and young dogs sold in Scotland would be traceable, which would assist local authorities, the SSPCA and other welfare organisations in relation to enforcement. Sometimes, if a dog misbehaves and there is no owner in sight, it is hard to know whose dog it is.

At present, if someone is not a licensed breeder, it is assumed that they are breeding fewer than three litters. There is no simple way of establishing whether they are breeding on a wider scale in an unlicensed way. In other words, we do not know whether they are breeding lots and have not applied for a licence.

Traceability of any puppy would aid enforcement to prevent the wide-scale sale of puppies from multiple litters by those in the illegal puppy farm trade. The register would also inform decision makers for those purchasing dogs, and it could highlight when a seller was not compliant with either regime.

Those are the purposes of registration. It is about traceability.