Seòmar agus comataidhean

The certificate is not voluntary. If the code of practice comes into being, the certificate will be mandatory. That will be very useful for ensuring that people have read and understood some basic questions that most of us would ask ourselves when getting a puppy or a dog. That would require the person who is transferring the dog and the person who is acquiring it to have seen and signed the certificate and to have said that they understand the conditions.

That is also useful for animal welfare organisations. If an issue relating to the welfare of the dog arises, for instance, the response would not be punitive, but an organisation can point out that the person requires the certificate. As I have emphasised throughout, the bill is not a punitive piece of legislation; it is intended to change public behaviour.

It really is for the minister.

I was going to say that I would tear my hair out, but it looks as if I have done that already to some of it.

I would be disappointed. The legislation is not an ego trip, but I would be disappointed, because I do not think that such a combination would work as well as the proposed code would work. That is key. I care about Christine Grahame’s legislation because I care about the effectiveness of a code of practice in changing the way that people behave in acquiring a puppy or a dog.

If I thought that, in the next year, amending the existing codes would be effective, I might consider it, but I do not think that it would be at all effective. You can see for yourself that the questions in the bill are really simple. They are straightforward questions that anybody can understand, and the proposed code is not complex. The existing code is 28 pages long, including all those links. Who is going to read that? The proposed code is straightforward, with a wee checklist of questions.

I see that Roz Thomson wants to come in.

I would not call them “irresponsible”. It is a terribly emotional thing. I do not know how many people get a dog or a puppy for emotional reasons before their head comes in somewhere down the road. It is a very hard situation—for example, during Covid, people were stuck at home over a period of two years and in need of companionship. I would not call it “irresponsible”. I am saying that, although someone might wish to proceed, they should think about what suits them at the time. At the end of the day, it might well be that it is quite right for that person to get a dog or a puppy for companionship, but it is a case of getting the right dog at the right time, having considered everything else.

I would be careful about saying that people are irresponsible; people just need to think about it. It is tough to have to say to yourself, “No—I’m in the wrong place to have a puppy,” when you desperately want it. However, it might be the right thing for you at that time and the right thing for the puppy. If, having considered everything, you are going to get a dog or a puppy, it is important that you get it from the right place. It is not just about having the right reason; it is about getting the dog from the right place.

If they were resident in Scotland, the law would apply, but we cannot legislate beyond the jurisdiction of Scotland. If you acquire an imported puppy—whether from Ireland, Romania or wherever—you will not see it with its mother. The point is that, in most circumstances, you get to see a puppy with its mother. If you cannot see the mother, you should be asking, “Where is this puppy coming from?”—

No, but the point is that the acquirer should be saying, “Here is a puppy for sale, but I can’t get to see it. Where is it coming from?” If they check, they will find that it is coming across on a boat to Stranraer from a puppy factory farm in southern Ireland or from somewhere in Romania that is pretending that the puppy is a rescue puppy when it is not—it has been bred to come to this country. People would ask, “Why can’t I see this dog? I can’t see this puppy with its mother. Ah, wait a minute—something fishy is going on here.” That would stop them doing it—that is the point. You cannot legislate for a supplier outwith the jurisdiction, but you can legislate for the acquirer—the demand purpose. That is what stimulated the bill.

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.