Chamber and committees

The acquirer must challenge the supplier—that is the point. Perhaps “challenge” is too strong a word, but they must question the supplier. I come back to the purpose of the legislation, which is to stop the casual emotional acquiring of puppies, which is not in the interest of the puppies or the people who acquire them. The purpose is to make them pause. The code, separated off, is simple and straightforward, because it is designed to educate the section of the public who are not being irresponsible but who just do not think long and hard enough. It might be that it is not the right thing for someone at that time but that, in a year’s time, it would be. That is what this is about.

Before I ask Roz Thomson to go into the specifics of the figures, I will say that that is why, as I said in my answer to Ms Burgess, I made the requirement discretionary. As I said, I am aware of inflationary pressures on Government and local authorities at this time. Much as I love animals, providing homes for people is at the top of the list. That is why the requirement is discretionary, bearing in mind that economic circumstances have changed—inflation was raging, particularly last year, and it is still high.

That is also why, with regard to part 2 of the bill, if the Government feels that the cost of registration would be cumbersome and suggests an alternative, I am prepared for that alternative to be used, with the caveat that we move forward with some kind of cross-referencing of microchipping. I am very aware of costs for local authorities. I will ask Roz Thomson to reflect on the specifics but, in general, that was my policy view of it: we have to be realistic; we cannot say to local authorities, “This is a whizz-bang system. I just want you to do it and I dinnae care what it costs.” I do care what it costs.

Yes. I will ask Claudia Bennett to talk about the legalities, but that is my view.

It is about the transfer. It is not just the first purchase; you could be a supplier to an acquirer who has the puppies for a short time before moving them to somebody else—that is what the provision is going for.

Most of it is common sense. People should ask the person who is supplying the puppy why they cannot see it with its mother and challenge them.

It is a good question, Ms Hamilton, but the rehoming centres, such as the SSPCA and Dogs Trust, are very strict. If they have a dog with behavioural issues, as cutesy as it might be, even if somebody says, “I just love it,” they would say that the dog has issues. Quite often, the centres keep the dogs and retrain them.

The centres are, in fact, huge custodians of the welfare of the animals that they have and of the people who want them, and they will not simply hand the dog over. I know that from experience, because I am a member of the SSPCA, which I probably should have declared, and I am also a patron of the Edinburgh Dog and Cat Home, which has had some dogs for a couple of years because the right match for them has not been found.

I do not remember it, so you might have to repeat it. [Laughter.]

The point is that the current system is not working. It is quite common for people to know about puppy factory farms, but the fact that puppies are being sent back and dogs are being abandoned tells us that we are not having the proper effect. The code is simple. It is to educate people and make them realise that they are not rescuing a puppy—they are creating more misery for more puppies.

I will also say that I saw my puppy with the other dogs, and it was very well socialised and happy as a bunny. The gamekeeper told us that they were keeping two but that they did not need the other six, because they would not be suitable.

To me, this is not a difficult issue. The difference is that a working dog retires but a pet does not. A working dog might retire and be kept with a person after it does so.

I was a young woman at the beginning of this process.