Chamber and committees

The code is more than that; it is a case of a simple focused thing. I have already addressed in my opening statement the issue of the code being absorbed into the general codes. It would get lost in translation. I wanted to focus on the purchasing and acquiring of puppies in an uninformed fashion, which has been ancillary to an increase in puppy factory farms. That was not the only issue, but it was part of the issue. By making a simple code, we are dealing with a different cohort of people—people who, for good reason, want the company of a pet. We are making them focus on that. I hope that, with the code, the nature of the unlicensed puppy trade—if I may loosely call it that—will be changed.

After consultation with the various organisations that support the bill, I decided that those were the basic questions. There might be other questions that someone else might ask. For example, someone might have a medical condition and their abilities might deteriorate over time. The questions would be different for them. The bill includes basic questions that people often do not consider, and those are the simple ones that we should start with. Where am I living? Is this the right place for a dog? What is my family like? Do I have cats? Do I have another dog?

Some people even speak to a vet before they get a pet. You do not need to put that in the bill. The questions in the bill are what should be considered, and I thought that they were good starters for 10, as it were.

I wanted to keep the bill short, punchy and easily understood. If we want to educate people, we cannot blow the bill up and put too much in. As a former secondary school teacher, I realise that you can only teach so much in one lesson. I put in the questions that I thought were key. As I said previously, someone else might have additional questions, but the ones in the bill are the basics. It is up to the Government to add any other questions that it might consider, subject to their being within the ambit of what I already have in the bill.

It would be the responsibility of the transferor—the person who had the dog and was transferring it to the person who was acquiring it. The certificate would be their responsibility. They would not need to have the certificate all the time, but, if an issue arose, an animal welfare organisation such as the SSPCA, which might have received a call from someone who was concerned about the welfare of a dog in a household, could ask to see the certificate.

Today, everything can be done online, or you can print things out or get them at libraries, so you could demonstrate that you had the certificate. You are supposed to do it, but this is an educational issue—it is not punitive—so there might be circumstances in which the person has not done it. There is scope in the bill and in the criminal legislation—the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006—to make an allowance if somebody has not done it, provided that the reason is not malign and the person has been negligent in a sense, but not so negligent that they deserve to be penalised for it.

In my view, in all legislation—except in road traffic legislation and so on, in which the requirement is absolute—there should be flexibility in certain circumstances, but you would have to show why you did not know about it.

The certificate requirement is about making people aware so that they have read about and done what they are supposed to do. It is a physical demonstration that they know about and have done it. Given that it is not onerous, I think that most people will be pleased to do it and will think that it is a good idea.

Do I need a tin hat?

First, the Government has not undertaken anything in relation to microchipping. I seem to recall, convener, that you were on the Audit Committee in 2016—I might be wrong.

The code relates to the time of the transfer of the dog. Microchipping relates to part 2, which is on a registration system. Microchipping would not be in the code.

Section 5, on revision of the code, says

“The Scottish Ministers may revise the code of practice as it has effect for the time being.”

They can revise the code.

There might be circumstances in which a puppy cannot be seen with its mother, and I allow for those. The 2021 regulations set out a number of circumstances. They say:

“A puppy may only be shown to a prospective purchaser if it is together with its biological mother.”

However, that does not apply if the

“separation of the puppy from its biological mother is necessary for the health or welfare of the puppy”

or that of

“other puppies from the same litter or”—

and this is the circumstance to which you referred—

“the puppy’s biological mother is deceased.”

We can see the reasons why it would not be practicable, but they are already in regulations.

I am not forcing it.