Seòmar agus comataidhean

I think that I made that clear. Some people acquire puppies directly from the unlicensed breeder. I thought that I was dealing with a possible loophole, although it might not always be a loophole. Somebody might acquire a puppy from an unlicensed breeder, keep it for a bit and then transfer it to somebody else, perhaps because they cannot cope with it or for other motives. The 12-month deadline is in the bill so that they will still have obligations if they do that.

I do not want to focus only on online sales, but let us say that there will be cute little puppies online. There will be other dogs as well that might be six or seven months old and have already been with somebody other than the unlicensed breeder. The same obligations exist, so that is why I took it up to 12 months. As you can see from the bill, there are different rules for the first unlicensed breeder from those for people those who sell dogs up to 12 months old.

Claudia Bennett, do you want to comment?

They could not fill it in, because they would not have checked. They would not have been able to see the puppy with its mother and daddy. None of that would have happened; that is the point. Many people think that they are rescuing dogs when, in fact, it is a business—a European business or a business in southern Ireland, in the main.

That is what I have to overcome. It is a good question, because those people are not rescuing a dog; they are buying a product that criminals are breeding. If someone takes that puppy, another six will appear in its place, at £2,500 to £3,000 each.

First of all, I am hopeful that, in the initial stages, the certificate would reduce the need to publicise or run public awareness campaigns about the illegal puppy trade. The point is to provide education in order to change public behaviour. We should let the public do the job of achieving what we all want, which is an end to the illegal puppy trade, the distress that happens and people getting puppies for the wrong reasons. I hope that the certificate will do that.

Publicity campaigns on various issues are already running and telling people that they should not buy this or that, but those are not working. The situation is getting worse, in that more people are buying puppies online and then abandoning them and so on. By having a campaign on acquisition, we are going back to the key message. The problems start when people first get puppies. I hope that, if we start there, we will decrease the requirement for subsequent messages such as “A dog is for life, not just for Christmas”, which is the famous one.

You have heard the thrust of my argument, which was about people buying online with their emotions. That is what it was about. I am sure that your experience stems from your own background; mine is that people who acquire working dogs are working—that is the key. In the main, they know the dog’s pedigree, their attributes and where they come from; they are not buying casually. That dog has got to earn its keep. It is therefore a very different kettle of fish. Working dogs, police dogs, assistance dogs, guide dogs and gamekeepers’ dogs are all trained. They have certain attributes from their breeding.

My bill was never aimed at those dogs, and I do not see the point of its being aimed in that way. The gamekeepers and the people who train guide dogs know what they are looking for and are educated. They can say, “I am not getting that dog, but I know that this collie would be very good, because I know its parenthood.” That is a very different thing, which is why the bill does not cover such situations. It was aimed at pets, not working dogs. I do not think that it should include working dogs.

It is not voluntary in that sense. Section 4 says:

“Before acquiring the dog, the prospective acquirer is to complete a certificate”.

It says “is to complete”, not “may complete”, so completing the certificate is mandatory.

There are too many people who, for good reasons, do not reflect before they acquire animals. We see that in the number that are being abandoned and in the vast criminal puppy trade. It can cost £2,500 for a puppy that has been brought here, often in dreadful and desperate conditions.

Earlier, I talked about the purpose of the bill—it is to ensure that people think twice. A person will have to complete a certificate relating to the matters mentioned in section 4(4)—they have to go through all that. They have to think twice, thrice or four times before they maybe say at the end of that, “Yes, I do want to get a dog, but I had better not get that breed,” or, “I’ve got to go and see it with its mother and not buy online.” There is a huge increase in the online selling of little teddy bear puppies and very popular dogs, and often the results are puppies that are poorly bred and poorly trained and that come from really bad sources. It is about all-round good-egg stuff for the animal and the person who is getting it.

The major onus is on suppliers, as many of them are in business—some are not, but most of them are. There would be a duty on the Scottish Government to publicise the proposed code. There is also the certificate, which will require a change in engagement. We rarely say to people that, if they have read a code or the legislation, they need to sign something saying that they have read and understood it.

Engagement should be a process of saying, “You’re part of this.” Part of the issue that I want the public to understand is that they are the custodians and are policing the welfare of Scotland’s puppies and young dogs that come into the system. I go back to the fact that demand will change the nature of supply. My expectation is that informed demand—it is a horrible expression—will mean that the puppies that come through the system will change. People will say, “Wait a minute. I have seen the puppy online. I know that I can’t take it. I’m not supposed to do this. I don’t know who this person is.”

Alternatively, they might see somebody at a market who has some puppies in their van. The trouble is that people think that they are rescuing animals, but they are not. If you see a puppy in a distressed state with its big eyes and you think, “I’ll take it,” all that happens is that, in the conveyor belt of these factory farms, some bitch is being put through the system to produce more puppies. By signing the certificate, you become part of regulating and part of the system.

I think that that is good for owners. I get quite emotional about this because, due to my lifestyle, I cannot have a dog. I have gone through those tests myself and said, “I can’t do this,” because I have the cat and I am not there and all those things, including my age, which has to be taken into account. People have to go through that process and say to themselves, “I’ll be hard.” If they must, there are other ways of enjoying the company of dogs, such as fostering or going into pet shelters to take them for walks, but maybe it is not right for them to have a dog.

What distresses me is that, in the six years that I have been working on the issue, the system has got worse. If it had not got worse, I would have packed it in. I would not need to be arguing for change—I could leave it to the Government—but the point is that the Government has not changed the existing code. By introducing the bill and pushing the Government to put a new code through, we move the dial—to use that horrible expression.

I have one final question, convener—I thank you for your tolerance. Has the minister seen my response to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee regarding the code of practice and any revisions to it?

On the existing code of practice, although I would dispute that people pay much attention to it, do you accept that, unlike the code of practice in my bill, it does not deal specifically with all the issues that are raised prior to acquiring a dog? I am not talking about issues that come up once someone gets a dog but issues that arise before they even get to that point, which might mean that they might not get one at all.

I just have two more questions, and I am trying to be very pointed about them.

Minister, you referred to section 2(2) as being prescriptive; I will talk specifically to section 2(2)(a). You talked about different breeds of dog. I understand all about the breeds and how difficult it is when they are bred in certain ways, and I do not think that that section is prescriptive. It says:

“is the breed of dog suitable for you ... ?”,

which is very broad. It takes into account any changes in breeding that take place. If breeds come along that are fashionable and that are—to use a term that is perhaps controversial—deformed or have difficulties in breathing, walking or whatever, that is contained in the provision.

The provision asks, as I have said,

“is the breed of dog suitable for you ... ?”,

and it goes on to say:

“recognising that some breeds require more space, exercise and care than others”.

Does that encapsulate the concerns that you have raised about bulldog breeds such as—I can never say the word—Staffordshires and their difficulties with breathing and your point that people should consider all that before they take on such breeds?

I think that section 2(2)(a) is very broad and that it allows for future changes. I am just contesting your evidence.