Chamber and committees

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.

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?

I am maligning you. In 2016, I raised the idea of having a national microchipping database, and the Government made a vague undertaking to look at that, but nothing has happened in all that time. I would love there to be a national microchipping database. It would solve an awful lot of problems. I will hand over to Roz Thomson to comment, but I think that it would be open to the Government to add that if it wanted to. It has not shown any inclination in that direction since 2016.