Seòmar agus comataidhean

Dr Allan, you have hit upon my issue with prescribing what should be in that code of practice. We would like to see amendments made to that provision. If we are too prescriptive about what is in a code of practice that is in a bill, we need secondary legislation to amend it as things change and go forward.

As I have said in my responses to other members, things do change. Trends change in dog ownership, breeding standards change, and different types of dogs with different issues come on the market. We see that all the time. People who are involved in the less-than-professional aspect of puppy breeding are clever and able to do things to avoid detection. They are fleet of foot in any aspect of duping the public into thinking that they are responsible breeders. Therefore, notwithstanding that we have not revised the 2009 code, which is an issue for us to discuss, having a prescriptive code of practice in the bill would make it harder to change, because it would have to go through Parliament as secondary legislation.

I am probably about to repeat myself. The issue with part 1 is about the wording of any code of practice. At the moment, some of the wording looks directive rather than advisory. Not too much would be required in order to make that clearer.

Without putting words into Christine Grahame’s mouth, I think that the intention behind part 1 of her bill is to be advisory rather than directive. In her policy memorandum, she has stated that she wants to achieve

“behavioural change, without placing formal ... obligations on the parties involved”.

Some amendments are required to the wording, to make that clear.

I have already mentioned to other members the prescriptive content of the code of practice in the bill. I never feel that such a thing is particularly helpful. As has been mentioned, when things are on the face of the bill and circumstances change, that takes up parliamentary time. What we need in the bill is something that would not necessarily require adaptation but would have flexibility built in: a code of practice for X that could be added to and changed over time.

Another aspect is the code of practice being ready within six months of royal assent. I have talked about the code of practice in the bill not being prescriptive, and the most useful course of action when a bill is passed that requires a code of practice is for the code to go out for consultation again once the legislation has been passed. Six months is not enough time for that to be achieved. If the bill is to have the impact that Ms Grahame wants—we all know that she cares very much for the welfare of animals—the best thing to do is have a consultation that means that the code of practice is the best that it can be, and we would require more than six months for that.

Maybe that should be explored. My impression was that the bill is about the purchasing of all puppies, regardless of whether they will be a pet or whether they will necessarily be in someone’s home. My understanding is that Ms Grahame’s bill is about decisions on purchasing a puppy or a dog in general.

Okay.

I was not going to say that. [Laughter.]

I do not have any concern about the figures in the financial memorandum associated with the campaign. I think that they are realistic and in line with those for similar campaigns.

I think that the carrot, as you put it, is about families and people who are buying dogs having good advice and knowing, when they buy a puppy from somewhere, that they have followed the best practice. It is about people having comfort that they have not participated in the perpetration of any kind of nefarious trade and that they have not bought, potentially, an ill puppy, because it is devastating for people when puppies become ill. That is the carrot.

I do not want to put words into Ms Grahame’s mouth, but I suppose that, from her point of view, the carrot is also that people who conform to the code when they sell puppies will have, almost, a kind of quality assurance associated with what they are doing.

We would certainly be open to an amendment that would double that time. As I said in response to Ms Forbes, we would support amendments that clarified that the provisions of sections 2 to 4 on the code of practice are advisory in nature rather than directive. I think that that is where we have an issue.

I refer back to everything that I have said about the people who are perpetrating these less-than-optimum practices for puppy breeding. They are very clever people. Although you have great intentions with regard to what the bill might achieve, I worry about some aspects of it. I do not necessarily think that a code of practice is the only tool in the box that we need to have in order to deal with the illegal puppy trade.

I have mentioned some of the work that has been done by the Scottish Government and other agencies as part of the group that has been set up. That involves working with HM Revenue and Customs, Border Force and other Administrations to tackle the organisations that are involved in the practices in question. I do not think that a code of practice will ever solve that problem.

However, I agree that we need to have a new set of guidance that enhances and improves people’s awareness of some of the practices that are happening now and some of the issues that they should take into account when they are looking to buy or adopt a dog or a puppy. A new set of guidance will be helpful in that regard.

Will it solve the terrible situation that we see with puppies coming in from, in particular, Eastern Europe or Ireland that are, in effect, farmed in massive sheds that are like conveyor-belt factories? To do so will require working between Administrations, working with border forces and, as I have said, working with HMRC to identify the individuals who are making money from puppies and who are involved in organised crime. That task is a lot bigger than what you are proposing in your bill.