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.

How many questions have you got? It would be nice to know that in advance.

Bear with me while I find the right place in my papers.

The focus of section 8 is on the first owner being a Scottish resident at the time of wanting to advertise sale or transfer. At that point, the litter would have to be registered. I come back to the difficulty of a situation in which the puppy is coming from abroad. Before we even get to that point, people should have checked by seeing the puppy with its mother. That is the key.

I have mentioned Romania and southern Ireland; with puppies that have been bred outwith Scotland and imported, it is necessary to have seen the puppy with its mother. I know that there are criminal ways in which people try to get round that, such as by having a false bitch with the puppy, but that is key, in the first instance. If someone who wants to acquire a puppy thinks that there is something amiss, because the puppy is not registered, they have not seen a registration for it or they have not seen it with its mother, alarm bells should be ringing. If they think, “This is not fit—there’s something wrong here,” they should not proceed or should make further inquiries.

No.

That is right.

I will let Roz Thomson in here. I have not been specific because microchipping has come in as a sort of ancillary to the bill; it was introduced by the minister, actually, in response to the committee. That was the first time that microchipping was mentioned—in evidence to the committee.

I will pass over to Roz Thomson.

Thank you very much, convener. I welcome the opportunity to give evidence on my bill to the committee.

For the past six years, I have been working with a wide range of organisations on the policy in the bill. As the minister highlighted in evidence, the Government’s dog breeding licence scheme had its genesis in my previous member’s bill, in the previous parliamentary session. The bill is therefore a reduced version of that former bill, but with the valuable addition of the certificate process to complement the code of practice.

Six years ago, I became aware of the growth in the supply of puppies and dogs purchased online and from puppy factory farms, and I considered what could be done to reduce that. I decided that, if supply was the issue, the current legislation and policing were not having a sufficient impact and that I should perhaps tackle demand, which would have an effect on supply.

We all know that there has been a surge in the level of dog ownership across Scotland, exacerbated by Covid. Combined with the lack of an informed approach among the public to buying a dog—which I understand—that has led to a rise in unscrupulous breeding. It is therefore more urgent to ensure that those who are thinking of getting a dog do so in an informed way. My bill is a valuable tool in the box alongside other on-going work set out by the Scottish Government in the minister’s evidence.

The animal welfare issues, emotional distress, massive vets’ fees and high mortality rates as a result of illegal puppy farming and the buying of dogs that people cannot care for have been well established in evidence to the committee. Evidence from key stakeholders supporting my bill demonstrates the scale of the issue. The Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has estimated that the illegal puppy trade is worth £13 million a year in Scotland. The Dogs Trust has highlighted the huge rise in problems that have arisen from people buying dogs that they cannot properly look after. Abandonment rates are rising—there was an item on the news this morning in which it was shown that abandonment rates are still on the rise—and 96 per cent of rehoming centres have reported an increase in behavioural issues.

Calls to the SSPCA helpline about giving up pets have quadrupled. Costs, vet care and inappropriate living conditions are cited as common reasons. A recent survey found that only 29 per cent of people considered cost when they got their pet.

Dogs are the most frequently abandoned animal, and rehoming centres are experiencing incredible pressures. Battersea Dogs & Cats Home found that only 5 to 10 per cent of puppies across the UK come from licensed breeders, who should ensure healthy puppies and appropriate new owners. It follows that 95 per cent of puppies are bought from unlicensed sellers.

Awareness of the signs of unscrupulous breeding is low. A report by the People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals found that only 43 per cent of dog owners knew that a puppy should be seen with its mother. The SSPCA highlighted that 65 per cent of owners found their pets online—with £2.5 million of associated fraud. Twenty per cent of puppies bought online fall ill or die within a year, according to Government-commissioned research.

The Dogs Trust’s submission describes the purpose of the bill to be

“educating and providing prospective dog owners with the tools to purchase or rehome a dog more responsibly, and to identify and avoid unscrupulous breeding practices.”

That is the crux of what the bill would achieve: educating to change the behaviours of the public and prevent many of the problems that I have highlighted. That is why the general principles of the bill are supported by the clear majority of organisations that have submitted written evidence to the committee, including the SSPCA, the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, Blue Cross, the Dogs Trust, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home and a number of local authorities.

Before I answer questions, I will make two key points on the contents of the bill.

The question why we need a new code when the Government could just revise and promote the old one has been raised. The code in the bill serves a purpose that is very different from that of the existing code. Given that distinctive purpose, it will have a different appearance. It applies to a different group of people, and a new certificate and associated process are attached to it. It applies to people who are considering acquiring a dog; the existing code applies to people who already own one.

The code in the bill and the certificate process would do three additional key things. First, they would make people think twice if they realise that they cannot afford a dog or that it would not fit their lifestyle or living space. Secondly, they would help people to have more time to identify the right breed for them and their circumstances. Thirdly, they would help people to assess the situation that a puppy is being sold in and give them clear warning signs that they may be buying from the illegal puppy trade.

The code will also be short and easily understood. It will be a punchy checklist of key considerations, including the key questions that I set out in my bill. That contrasts with the existing code, which is a long reference document that runs to 28 pages and is linked to a wealth of other reference material. I want my code to be easily understood. Subsuming its contents into the existing code would mean that the key considerations that I seek to get buyers to engage with would get lost and therefore would have less prominence. Furthermore, the distinct purposes of the two codes would be diluted. Clarity would be lost, and the code would therefore be less effective.

I also emphasise the importance of the certificate. No certification process is associated with the existing code. Certification seeks to ensure that anyone who is buying a dog will reflect on the questions to be answered as part of that certification. That will prompt them to reflect on the questions and, I hope, to reflect further.

The briefest consideration of those questions will give pause for thought—no pun intended—to those who are buying a puppy through online sales, through consideration of the cost and the breed, questioning why they cannot see the mother with the puppy and so on, as will asking them to sign the certificate and confirm that they understand the need to retain it in case the authorities should have cause to see it.

That is based on a process that is followed in France, where, as of 2022, a certificate has been required when buying a dog or a number of other animals. Both my certificate and the French certificate require the provider to sign the certificate, which creates a responsibility on the supplier to ensure that the acquirer has gone through all the necessary steps in the checklist of questions that are contained in the certificate.

I have listened carefully to the evidence that the committee has received and to the recurring themes in members’ questions. On the point about the Government being able to do the work that is required to create a new code without my bill, the policy work, drafting, consultation and scrutiny have already been undertaken, and the Government has made it clear that it supports the code and the certification process and has even considered how it would amend the bill at stage 2. How would asking the Government to begin that work again be a good use of the time of the Parliament, the Government and the animal charity sector among others, or improve the welfare of animals?

In addition, the bill includes a legislative requirement for the code to be publicised. That requirement, combined with an acknowledgement from the minister that the costs associated with that element of the bill seem entirely reasonable, gives assurances that awareness raising will definitely happen. That is the key difference between a new, successful code and a new certification process and the existing code, about which there are very low awareness levels among the public and which has not been revisited or revised since 2010.

I am just coming to the end now—I see the clerk looking agitated.

On part 2 of the bill, members will have seen the letter that I sent to the minister last week. I am wholly committed to the intention behind part 2 to improve traceability, so that any dog that is being sold or transferred in Scotland needs to be on a searchable database. That would enable the public to take informed decisions when sourcing a puppy. It would also aid enforcement and make puppies that are sold outwith either regime—including those sold through the illegal puppy trade—far easier to identify.

That said, if an alternative is being actively pursued by the Government through the use of microchipping that would deliver the benefits of part 2 by another means, that would merit close consideration as a viable alternative to the register of unlicensed litters that I propose, especially given the Government’s indication that it will seek to remove part 2 by amendment at stage 2.

I am still arguing for those provisions but, if push comes to shove with part 2, I would be content for the committee—if necessary and if the committee wants—to remove the provisions about the register for the time being, and I would undertake to accept the Government’s amendment, subject to our moving on with a microchipping national database.

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.

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.