Seòmar agus comataidhean

I welcome the amendments in this group, which will improve and strengthen the bill.

Amendment 6 agreed to.

I will move amendment 7 and speak to the other amendments in the group. Amendment 7 would delete the phrase “to keep as a pet”, amendment 9 would delete the word “pet” and amendment 56 would leave out the term “as pets”.

On reflection, the stage 1 debate made it clear to me that there could be a loophole or confusion if I tried to make a definitive difference between a working dog and a pet. We all know that some dogs are working dogs, such as dogs for the blind, police dogs, shepherding dogs and hearing dogs for the deaf. That is clear, but there are categories where there could be crossover. To include all dogs is not to malign or in a way criticise people who employ and acquire working dogs. I know that those people are very thorough in what they do. The issue is that there could be a loophole and that somebody could claim, “Mines is a working dog,” when, in fact, it is a pet.

The change will make it easier for everyone. There cannot be any dispute, because it is just a dog. In many cases, those who acquire working dogs do what is needed anyway, so there is no harm to them. The changes are not in any way an attempt to criticise those people. They have dogs that have to earn their keep, as it were, so they know about the breeding and where the dogs have come from. The convener, Mr Fairlie and Mr Mountain are farmers, so they know what I am talking about.

The bill will be simpler if it refers simply to dogs and not to pets. I hope that I have won your heart with that, Mr Mountain.

I move amendment 7.

I agree, but that is not the point. You cannot do that in this bill, but then we could—

I was generally supportive of Rhoda Grant’s amendments, but I do not have a vote.

I am glad to see that there has been some movement, because I think that the issue is terribly important. Vets are the very people who do not want disasters involving an owner and their puppy or dog, or an animal that is in poor condition.

Again, we return to something that is in the shadows of the bill: puppy farming and the importing of puppies that people buy online. People might have no idea about that. If they have a preliminary meeting with a vet, a conversation about that will open up. Although the bill does not deal directly with that aspect, sitting behind it is the current practice of people buying puppies out the back of cars, online and so on. That is the thrust of it, and I think that that makes vets the very people to be part of that information loop, if I can call it that.

On the Government’s amendments, the code of practice and the associated certificate are not legally binding.

It will help the committee if I quote the existing code of practice for the welfare of dogs. The second paragraph of the preface says:

“Generally, there is a duty to comply with legislation. Although the Code does not have legislative effect, it is intended to promote and give examples of good practice.”

Here is the killer line:

“Failure to comply with a provision of this Code, whilst not an offence in itself, may be relied upon as tending to establish liability where a person has been accused of an offence under Part 2 of the Act.”

The next sentence says:

“Equally, compliance with a provision of the Code may be relied upon as tending to negate liability by a person in any proceedings for an offence under Part 2 of the Act.”

Without trying to be too boring, I note that section 6(2) of my bill says:

“In any proceedings for a relevant offence—

(a) failure to comply with a relevant provision of the code of practice may be relied on as tending to establish liability, and

(b) compliance with a relevant provision of the code of practice may be relied on as tending to negative liability.”

That is lifted straight from the previous code of practice, so I do not see the problem. All that my bill does is replicate the existing code of practice. The issue is evidential and has nothing to do with perception.

I thank Rachael Hamilton.

As the committee knows, at stage 1, I took the position that it was important to have a separate, stand-alone, simple code that related to the acquisition of a dog or a puppy. The difference between such a code and the existing code is that the existing code is for people who already have a dog. My proposed code represents a pre-emptive strike to make sure that people have taken account of all the welfare and accommodation issues in advance of proceeding to acquire a dog. Therefore, I do not support what Rachael Hamilton is proposing.

I have an ancillary comment. The existing code is 36 pages long, so it is pretty cumbersome. I say, with respect, that I do not think that many people will have read it. If they have read it, I think that they will have done so after they have got a dog. The code that I am looking to introduce will be on one side of A4 and will be written in simple language; it will not be complicated. I want people not to desist from reading it because it has too many pages, and to have a look at it in advance of getting a dog. Although it will be written in a similar style to the existing code, it will, I hope, be a very easy read, as it will use straightforward, conversational language. I know that that is not mentioned in my bill at the moment; we will come on to that later. I want my proposed code to be written in conversational language so that people can understand in simple terms what they will be taking on if they get a dog. That is in the best interests of the dog or puppy and, indeed, the potential owner.

Obviously, I reject Rachael Hamilton’s wrecking amendment, which would completely take my bill out of the picture.

The minister says that the amendments that he has lodged—a substantial number of them—offer flexibility, but I think that they water things down a bit. Amendment 10, for example, would delete “giving effect to” and substitute it with “must have regard to”. To me, that is not offering flexibility. You could call it flexibility, but it gives an awful lot more leeway to the Government than “giving effect to”, which is about actually doing what the legislation says. Similarly, in changing “must” to “may”, amendment 11 is a change from making something mandatory to making it discretionary. To me, that is not flexibility—that is weakening the legislation. Therefore, I do not accept those amendments.

Amendment 15 will change the six-month period to 12 months. I am not happy about it, but, if I have a consideration and an undertaking from the minister that it will be “up to” 12 months, I will not go to the wall about it. What is six months between friends if it is changed to seven months, let us say, because it is “up to” 12 months? I will be keeping an eye on that timescale.

To Finlay Carson I say that I am relaxed about what the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee wants to do—whether it is a case of affirmative or negative procedure. It is expert in this area, so it is a matter for that committee at the end of the day. I do not have any issues with that, as I think I said previously to you.

To Rhoda Grant I say that I accept amendments 64, 67, 68 and 70, which change the phrasing to “must”, making it mandatory—I am sorry; I think that I have jumped over a group. I knew that I would go astray. I think that I have missed one. I am just checking to make sure that I have not missed speaking to something that I intended to speak about while I have the chance.

No, I think that that is it—my apologies, convener. Thank you very much.

Will the minister concede that my wording is lifted, word for word, from the Government’s own code of practice, which says:

“Although the Code does not have legislative effect, it is intended to promote and give examples of good practice”?

Is it not the case that the bill duplicates that?

Rachael Hamilton has been helpful, in a sense—perhaps she did not mean to be—about the code being targeted at the point before you acquire a puppy or a dog. Any publicity campaign would simply be aimed directly at people buying online or out the back of a car or a lorry, or at people thinking that they were rescuing the dog. Those are all methods that we know that serious organised criminals use. We know that the puppies cost £3,500 or £4,000, and that there are maybe six crammed into a crate, having been taken away from their mothers and not being socialised. The code will get people to focus on that narrow aspect, because that sort of thing is still happening.