Seòmar agus comataidhean

Before I ask Roz Thomson to go into the specifics of the figures, I will say that that is why, as I said in my answer to Ms Burgess, I made the requirement discretionary. As I said, I am aware of inflationary pressures on Government and local authorities at this time. Much as I love animals, providing homes for people is at the top of the list. That is why the requirement is discretionary, bearing in mind that economic circumstances have changed—inflation was raging, particularly last year, and it is still high.

That is also why, with regard to part 2 of the bill, if the Government feels that the cost of registration would be cumbersome and suggests an alternative, I am prepared for that alternative to be used, with the caveat that we move forward with some kind of cross-referencing of microchipping. I am very aware of costs for local authorities. I will ask Roz Thomson to reflect on the specifics but, in general, that was my policy view of it: we have to be realistic; we cannot say to local authorities, “This is a whizz-bang system. I just want you to do it and I dinnae care what it costs.” I do care what it costs.

Yes. I will ask Claudia Bennett to talk about the legalities, but that is my view.

It is about the transfer. It is not just the first purchase; you could be a supplier to an acquirer who has the puppies for a short time before moving them to somebody else—that is what the provision is going for.

Most of it is common sense. People should ask the person who is supplying the puppy why they cannot see it with its mother and challenge them.

It is a good question, Ms Hamilton, but the rehoming centres, such as the SSPCA and Dogs Trust, are very strict. If they have a dog with behavioural issues, as cutesy as it might be, even if somebody says, “I just love it,” they would say that the dog has issues. Quite often, the centres keep the dogs and retrain them.

The centres are, in fact, huge custodians of the welfare of the animals that they have and of the people who want them, and they will not simply hand the dog over. I know that from experience, because I am a member of the SSPCA, which I probably should have declared, and I am also a patron of the Edinburgh Dog and Cat Home, which has had some dogs for a couple of years because the right match for them has not been found.

I do not remember it, so you might have to repeat it. [Laughter.]

The point is that the current system is not working. It is quite common for people to know about puppy factory farms, but the fact that puppies are being sent back and dogs are being abandoned tells us that we are not having the proper effect. The code is simple. It is to educate people and make them realise that they are not rescuing a puppy—they are creating more misery for more puppies.

As I said, those are the fundamental questions to ask when you are buying a dog. The list is not complete; it is open to the Government, within the ambit of those questions, to have additional questions, if it wishes to do so. However, those are the very straightforward questions and I put them in the bill, as a direction to the Government, to ensure that those particular questions go into the code.

Too much of legislation is complex. When we are asking the public, rather than lawyers, to operate within legislation, it has to be easily understood, and I think that the questions that I have put in the bill, because I want them in the code, are easily understood. They are not complicated for people, but it is important that they are used. There is scope for the Government to include other information, but it should not go beyond that kind of ambit. Those questions are absolutely vital to the code as it has been constructed.

You can look at the questions in the bill, which I am now digging out. They are in straightforward English. For example, one asks:

“Is the breed of dog suitable for you and your family?”

That is an important question. The bill asks if the environment is suitable. If you live six floors up and you want to get a great big dog that needs a lot of exercise, that is not a good idea, because the lift might break. Those are simple things.

The bill asks:

“would the dog fit in with the composition of the household?”

Do you have a baby on the way? Is it a good time to get a dog? Do you have a lot of young children? What breed should you have? The bill also asks if you can afford

“the costs associated with keeping the dog”,

such as food and bedding. As I said in my opening statement, very few people think about that. Getting a dog is an emotional thing, so people do not consider the costs that lie ahead. Believe you me, when you walk into the vet, you either need insurance for the dog or a big pocketful of money, because it is expensive.

Another question in the bill is:

“are you committed to caring for the dog?”

The puppy that starts off as a toddler in your house becomes a naughty adolescent tearing things to bits. You are going to have it for 10 or 15 years. Your life will move on. Are you ready to take that dog with you?

Those are not complicated questions, but I think that they are the sort of questions that the public will understand and that will educate them. They will not be offended by them. You must have the public on your side.

There can be stage 2 amendments. After long consultation, I tried to keep the bill as uncluttered as possible for the prime purpose of enabling somebody who is acquiring a puppy to have second or third thoughts. I think that the bill delivers that. Other matters could then come in. You have raised microchipping—I am delighted that you have—but I think that that would come under part 2, where I was looking for registration to assist people acquiring puppies and the suppliers.

If we could have, even if not immediately, a national microchip database to which we can add information—because, as you know, many companies move from one place to another and nobody knows where they are—that would be great. If the bill moves that forward, I will be content that part 2 goes, subject to what the Government has to say about microchipping.

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.