Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Yes—I think that the requirement for a certificate is helpful and that it will focus minds. It is almost a psychological thing. If someone has to sign something in order to get a certificate, to show that they have had to think through some of the aspects of that, that would prompt reflection. I agree with the requirement, as people should very much be doing that already. They are making a commitment of up to about 15 years—they will have a living being in their house, which will require expense and attention and make a massive difference to their everyday life. The requirement for a certificate acts almost as a checklist, and I agree with that.

Potentially, Ms Grahame, but it is your bill and you have to answer the questions on what information you would like to see in some kind of register. I go back to the question, which I think was asked by Dr Allan, about what information the public register could usefully include that would help buyers to know anything about the puppies, the home or the breeder. What would the registration of those individuals mean in terms of animal welfare? What comfort could buyers take from the existence of the register?

Of course. I accept that any additional information could help any organisation that is involved in enforcement to join the dots.

I accept that, but I come back to our issues with part 2, which are to do with what it will actually achieve with regard to animal welfare.

It would be a code of practice that was targeted and focused on buying decisions and the provision of advice to people who were considering getting a puppy or a dog.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the committee’s evidence sessions on Christine Grahame’s Welfare of Dogs (Scotland) Bill. As we all know, animal welfare is not only an important issue but an emotive one. The Government takes animal welfare very seriously and is committed to the highest possible welfare standards. We welcome Ms Grahame’s effort in this area and support the general principles of the bill. We need to emphasise to people that they must be responsible owners and act responsibly when deciding to buy a dog or take one into their lives. The bill will help to do that.

The low-welfare puppy trade is unacceptable and is an area that the Scottish Government has been concerned about for many years. We have worked closely with stakeholders such as the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Dogs Trust to improve enforcement and understanding of the welfare problems and the risks to buyers associated with criminal activity behind the trade. That has included marketing campaigns, which were effective at raising awareness of the importance of seeing puppies with their mother before buying. We know that the movement restrictions during the Covid pandemic meant that that was not possible for a significant period and that there was an increased demand for puppies to be kept as family pets. It is therefore appropriate to consider again what more can be done to influence changes in buyers’ behaviour so that they make the right choices when sourcing a pet.

We look forward to hearing stakeholders’ views, as well as those of the committee, and we will consider carefully the committee’s stage 1 report. We have some issues with the framing of some parts of the bill, which we consider might benefit from amendment. We are very happy to discuss that with the committee and Ms Grahame during the bill process, but I hope that we will be able to reach an agreement on those and other matters so that we can arrive at a bill, at stage 3, that everyone can support and that will have a tangible impact on dog welfare.

I would respond to any recommendation that the committee made to me. That is a general professional response. Any recommendation that the committee made, whether it took the form of a letter, a stage 1 report or communication from the convener, would get a response from me.

Convener, if I can—to use the words of Ms Hamilton—be a bit cheeky, I remind the committee that it is Ms Grahame’s bill that is in front of us. Ms Grahame is in the room and wants to see her bill go forward. You are asking me to say, in effect, that we will do everything that Ms Grahame wants to do in her bill anyway without the need for her bill, so I do not think that that is a particularly fair question, although it may be a fair question for you to deliberate in private.

We have set out our support for the general principles of the bill, but we have also outlined areas where the bill could usefully be amended, and I will continue to do so during the session today if asked.