Chamber and committees

I want to get the bill through, so I have to carry a lot of people with me, including the Government. Therefore, I have taken a lighter-touch approach. When I started out all those years ago, in my youth, there were going to be penalties and everything else. A lot has changed in that time—with inflation, the pressures on local government and the pressures on budgets—so I must be realistic.

What is important to me is that I get the education part through. That is why I am prepared to compromise on other parts, and it is why the bill takes a lighter touch on registration. I would love it to be tougher, but you have to fit in with the times and with what is practicable in terms of legislation. I hope that what I have ended up with—bearing in mind my caveat about registration in the light of a national microchipping system—can become law and can work. I am not interested in legislation for its own sake; I want it to change what is happening out there for puppies and owners. That is why I have taken a lighter-touch approach on the registration scheme, and it is why I have moved a bit further as I have gone along the road.

I do not think that the Government has been as specific as that. It has alluded to a microchipping system and a national database as something that would be useful. I do not think—to the best of my knowledge; I will just check—that it has gone so far as to say that what has been proposed would be equivalent to that. However, it is a better step than having nothing at all, as we have at the moment.

I am not looking to add information; my thrust is about registration. Every cow and sheep in Scotland has a registration number; I would like that for each puppy sale or transfer. This has been added by the Government—

Rabbits are not registered, are they? I do not know—maybe they are.

That is a can of worms—or a database of worms.

First of all, I know that situation. My own dog—my Irish setter—came from a gamekeeper at Twynholm. He kept two puppies and the rest were sold as pets. I therefore understand those circumstances.

Let us look at the definition of a pet. The Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (Scotland) Regulations 2021 say that a

“‘pet’ means an animal kept permanently, or intended to be kept permanently, by a person mainly for—(a) personal interest, (b) companionship”—

I do not know about this one—

“(c) ornamental purposes”—

whatever that is—

“or (d) any combination of (a) to (c)”.

A working dog could have a litter and one of that litter could become a pet. That would come under the legislation, as they would then be transferred.

That is where the 12-month thing comes in. It might take a few months to decide that a dog will not have pups because it does not have the attributes to work on a farm. The dog would then become a transferee, so it would come under the legislation. That is obvious, and it is commonplace. It could apply to a gamekeeper’s dog or a guide dog. I have sponsored a number of guide dog pups; perhaps it is something to do with my sponsoring them, but only two have succeeded and have become guide dogs. The other two have become pets, so they would come under the legislation.

I notice that the minister suggested that the scheme is not workable, not a proportionate response, might not improve animal welfare, could provide unwarranted assurance to buyers and could provide a front for those selling puppies in the illegal puppy trade. I know that the Government intends to amend the bill to take out that part, should the bill proceed to stage 2, but it would, to me, be doing a disservice to the stakeholders with whom I have worked and who support the registration provisions, because of the benefits that they believe a register of unlicensed litters would bring, if I did not continue to highlight the benefits of implementing this part of the bill—notwithstanding the Government’s position.

As I have said, should it be the position of members of the committee that they would support the general principles of the bill if part 2 were to be removed, I would strongly encourage them to consider the clear need to have some means of ensuring the traceability of puppies and to seek an assurance from the Government at stage 2 that progress would be made in that regard. I am, of course, alluding to a national microchipping database.

The minister mentioned the legal requirement for all dogs to be microchipped, and a central register of microchipped dogs would provide traceability and the other benefits associated with the registration scheme that I propose. That would be an alternative to part 2 of the bill. I hope that members have seen my letter to the minister regarding that. As I have already said, I have always felt passionate about the need to make best use of the legal requirement to microchip puppies, and I have promoted the clear associated benefits for a long time. People would be able to check whether a puppy was on the national microchipping register.

I want a registration scheme but, if a registration scheme was not acceptable to the committee, I would not want the bill at stage 1 to be sabotaged—I do not mean sabotaged; I mean fall by the wayside—because of that.

Obviously, I want a registration scheme. However, I say to Ariane Burgess that the approach would be discretionary. Importantly, the bill says:

“The Scottish ministers may by regulations prohibit the first owner”

from selling or advertising litters that are not subject to registration. The key word there is “may”. I am leaving the Scottish Government some flexibility to act at a suitable time, because I accept the economic pressures that are being placed on the Government and local authorities. I have to be realistic, because the bill’s primary purpose—I will bore you by repeating it—is to educate. Acquiring registration is an important part of that, and I am pleased that you support it. I put in that section of the bill because I think that registration is important, but, if push comes to shove and there is a push to cross-reference microchipping, I can see a way forward to satisfy us that there will be some traceability of puppies and dogs in Scotland. It may not be the best solution, but it is part of a solution.

The landscape would be more cluttered if the code were to be absorbed into what exists. I am decluttering the landscape.

What is the big issue? What is the biggest problem when people start to look after a dog as a pet? The problem starts from the moment that a person gets it. If a person gets the wrong pet in the wrong circumstances for the wrong reasons and they have not seen it with its mother, they will have problems from the start. Instead of dealing with welfare issues once people have a pet, we should really deal with them in advance of that.

On top of that, the legislation would require people to self-certify with the person who is transferring the dog to them. That person also has a job to do in that they have to say that they think that the buyer is the right person. A licensed breeder will do that in that a good one will check the buyer’s circumstances and will not let any Tom, Dick or Harry—it is not politically correct to say that, so I will say Tom, Dickess and Harry—get a dog.

People cannot just go into a rehoming centre such as the SSPCA and get a cat or dog. The centre will check the person’s circumstances and will not let them have an animal if it thinks they are the wrong person. That is the level at which a person who is not licensed and who is transferring a pet to someone will operate. The buyer will be involved in the conversation and, importantly, as far as is humanly practicable, will see that puppy with its siblings and mother. That will tell them an awful lot about how the animal has been brought up.

The certificate will say, “I’ve thought about all of that.” People might not always get it right, but it will mean that they pause to think about it. I am sure that anyone who is sitting around this table who was thinking of getting a puppy would do that. However, that is not the case for many people, for very good reason, as was highlighted during Covid. The bill will make sure that they would do what all of us here would do.

Yes. Actually, it was the SSPCA that brought the French certificate to my attention. It is not necessarily about prosecution or taking a dog away; it could simply be a matter of educating. We must look at that as something additional to what the SSPCA has.

As I have said, the thrust of the approach is not punitive; the thrust is getting people to educate themselves. When I introduced the original bill proposal six years ago, things were bad enough, but they have got worse. I hope that focusing on that at the beginning will mean a happy outcome for people who want the comfort of a pet dog and that it will also deal with online sales in which people do not know where the pet is coming from or the state that it is in.