Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes.

That is because I started with registration, and microchipping was nowhere on the horizon. Nothing had happened since the microchipping legislation came in, so I started with registration. If registration is cumbersome, as the Government claims, and it is now discussing and pushing microchipping, that will make me happy. Either way, we will have a database, because every puppy aged eight weeks and over will have to be microchipped. A national database of dogs is a beginning. There is a lot of information on the microchip, so that is fine by me. If registration is cumbersome and we are walking down the road to a national microchipping database, that is grand. Although I wanted registration, part 2 of the bill will have served the important purpose of creating a national database.

Let us flip that a bit. In the main, suppliers will be more aware of the requirements, but both the supplier and the buyer must sign the certificate and both must be aware of the responsibilities under the certificate.

Bear with me—I think that I am being supported.

I refer to page 11 of the financial memorandum. Paragraph 61 details that there is

“an estimated cost of £21,500 to the Scottish Ministers to establish the register and £16,000 per annum to maintain the register”.

It also says:

“There may also be a cost to the Scottish Ministers of producing guidance; this is expected to be minimal and met from existing budgets”.

It lists a range of things that would fall under those costs, including publicity, and the details of other potential costs. Of course, in terms of local government funding and central Government funding, we are talking about gross costs. I was cut off in my prime earlier with regard to net costs, but it is important to note that abandoned animals and animals that behave badly represent a cost to the public purse—for example, there is a cost to local authorities in the policing of those issues. Some local authorities indicated in their submissions that they could see the benefit of educating the public to be aware before they get a pet, as there would be less pressure on them from dogs that are out of control and so on because we would have nipped the problem in the bud at the beginning by making sure that the animal is in the right place with the right person at the right time.

There is the first transfer, which would be at the puppy stage. If you look at the sections of the bill, you will see that section 2, which is on the sale or transfer of any dog, is a way to ensure that, if somebody were to acquire a dog at the puppy stage from a breeder—an unlicensed breeder, I hasten to add, not a licensed breeder—they would have to go through that process and complete the certificate. They might then move the puppy on to someone else, and they would then have to go through the process again, which is covered in section 3 on the sale or transfer of any dog by its first owner.

Part of the thinking behind that is that you might have someone who would acquire a puppy from an unlicensed breeder, say that they have done the certificate, and then move the puppy on to somebody else. However, that situation would be caught under section 3, because they would still have to go through a list of questions and complete a certificate. It is about catching that bit from puppy to 12 months. If you just did it for puppies, there would be a kind of loophole, so that is what section 3 is for.

Paragraph 52 of the memorandum includes the costs in relation to the employment of an animal welfare officer and so on. As far as is practicable, we have looked at that, but I am conscious that I do not want to burden local authorities with additional costs when their budgets are pressured. That is why, as I said, I made the question of when and if to introduce a registration scheme a matter for the discretion of the Scottish Government.

We know that there will be some additional costs, but we would just be plucking figures from thin air, and I will not do that.

As I say, in the general picture of things, we are well aware of the costs—as well as the potential benefits—for local authorities. However, this is not the time—this year or next year—to burden them with additional costs when they have so much to deal with.

Yes.

That could be the case, but it is less likely. It might be that the person acquiring the dog is physically unable to go and sends someone in their place to see it. That is understandable. If somebody is highly disabled, somebody else can go for them and check it out, but, in the vast majority of cases, the person should see the puppy with the siblings and the mother, unless there are particular circumstances—I hesitate to use the word “exceptional”, but something close to that. In the main, the person must see the mother.