Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Page 7 of the policy memorandum gives details on the current law and practice and how enforcement would be undertaken—that is why it is not necessary to put that into the bill.

Cluttered.

That is the point—the Government has not committed to amending the current code. I also dispute that suggestion. I could go out tomorrow and show people in Tesco that checklist of questions and I think that they would understand it. However, if I went out and showed them the full amended code, I think that they would go, “For goodness’ sake, I’m not reading 40 pages.”

I do not quite follow your question.

I am sorry?

It could happen at stage 2, if someone wanted to add something that was within the bill’s ambit. Also, in preparing the code to go through—I have my letter to the DPLR Committee, in which I say that I would be content for it to undergo parliamentary scrutiny—there is an opportunity to add things to extend the purpose of the bill, such as educating and so on. It is a starting point that lays the groundwork.

Are you referring to my letter to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee?