Seòmar agus comataidhean

It would be the responsibility of the transferor—the person who had the dog and was transferring it to the person who was acquiring it. The certificate would be their responsibility. They would not need to have the certificate all the time, but, if an issue arose, an animal welfare organisation such as the SSPCA, which might have received a call from someone who was concerned about the welfare of a dog in a household, could ask to see the certificate.

Today, everything can be done online, or you can print things out or get them at libraries, so you could demonstrate that you had the certificate. You are supposed to do it, but this is an educational issue—it is not punitive—so there might be circumstances in which the person has not done it. There is scope in the bill and in the criminal legislation—the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006—to make an allowance if somebody has not done it, provided that the reason is not malign and the person has been negligent in a sense, but not so negligent that they deserve to be penalised for it.

In my view, in all legislation—except in road traffic legislation and so on, in which the requirement is absolute—there should be flexibility in certain circumstances, but you would have to show why you did not know about it.

The certificate requirement is about making people aware so that they have read about and done what they are supposed to do. It is a physical demonstration that they know about and have done it. Given that it is not onerous, I think that most people will be pleased to do it and will think that it is a good idea.

Do I need a tin hat?

First, the Government has not undertaken anything in relation to microchipping. I seem to recall, convener, that you were on the Audit Committee in 2016—I might be wrong.

The code relates to the time of the transfer of the dog. Microchipping relates to part 2, which is on a registration system. Microchipping would not be in the code.

Section 5, on revision of the code, says

“The Scottish Ministers may revise the code of practice as it has effect for the time being.”

They can revise the code.

There might be circumstances in which a puppy cannot be seen with its mother, and I allow for those. The 2021 regulations set out a number of circumstances. They say:

“A puppy may only be shown to a prospective purchaser if it is together with its biological mother.”

However, that does not apply if the

“separation of the puppy from its biological mother is necessary for the health or welfare of the puppy”

or that of

“other puppies from the same litter or”—

and this is the circumstance to which you referred—

“the puppy’s biological mother is deceased.”

We can see the reasons why it would not be practicable, but they are already in regulations.

I am not forcing it.

First, there is a requirement to publicise, which Governments do not always do with members’ bills. Although they have said that they might do that with previous bills, they have not done so. It should also be repeat publicity. You can see that in the financial memorandum, which sets out the cost of a publicity campaign and of reinvigorating it. To me, that underlines the simplicity of the code and why it is understandable. It shows people some things that they have to consider and be aware of.

If the Government agrees to the legislation and we have public awareness campaigns, I hope that those start with images of what happens when the tests are not applied. The puppies have behavioural issues from being crammed into crates with lots of different breeds and unscrupulously sold for a fortune. The people who buy them are not rescuing them. The campaigns need to help us, the various welfare organisations, local authorities and everyone else who is involved with the issue to prevent the wrongful breeding of puppies.

To the best of my knowledge, the Government was content with the costs. Those are the gross costs of raising public awareness. When we offset the costs that are difficult to quantify as net costs, which are not only those to the public purse but the costs to welfare organisations of coping with the fallout from animals that have been abandoned, are in a state of distress or have behavioural issues, we are looking—

There are also licensed litters, but we will set that aside, because we are talking about unlicensed litters.

Any advert for a puppy or young dog would need to include a registration number for the dog from a licensed breeder or from an unlicensed owner. I envisage that that will provide reassurance for someone acquiring a dog, as they would know that the breeder or owner is compliant with all the regimes relating to the selling of puppies.

Again, that would require the public to be aware of the new system, in which every advert has a number for one or two regimes. The bill provides for awareness raising, and I envisage that that would need to be done on a rolling basis, not just as a one-off.

The creation of the registration requirement would mean that all puppies and young dogs sold in Scotland would be traceable, which would assist local authorities, the SSPCA and other welfare organisations in relation to enforcement. Sometimes, if a dog misbehaves and there is no owner in sight, it is hard to know whose dog it is.

At present, if someone is not a licensed breeder, it is assumed that they are breeding fewer than three litters. There is no simple way of establishing whether they are breeding on a wider scale in an unlicensed way. In other words, we do not know whether they are breeding lots and have not applied for a licence.

Traceability of any puppy would aid enforcement to prevent the wide-scale sale of puppies from multiple litters by those in the illegal puppy farm trade. The register would also inform decision makers for those purchasing dogs, and it could highlight when a seller was not compliant with either regime.

Those are the purposes of registration. It is about traceability.