Chamber and committees

I will let Roz Thomson in here. I have not been specific because microchipping has come in as a sort of ancillary to the bill; it was introduced by the minister, actually, in response to the committee. That was the first time that microchipping was mentioned—in evidence to the committee.

I will pass over to Roz Thomson.

Thank you very much, convener. I welcome the opportunity to give evidence on my bill to the committee.

For the past six years, I have been working with a wide range of organisations on the policy in the bill. As the minister highlighted in evidence, the Government’s dog breeding licence scheme had its genesis in my previous member’s bill, in the previous parliamentary session. The bill is therefore a reduced version of that former bill, but with the valuable addition of the certificate process to complement the code of practice.

Six years ago, I became aware of the growth in the supply of puppies and dogs purchased online and from puppy factory farms, and I considered what could be done to reduce that. I decided that, if supply was the issue, the current legislation and policing were not having a sufficient impact and that I should perhaps tackle demand, which would have an effect on supply.

We all know that there has been a surge in the level of dog ownership across Scotland, exacerbated by Covid. Combined with the lack of an informed approach among the public to buying a dog—which I understand—that has led to a rise in unscrupulous breeding. It is therefore more urgent to ensure that those who are thinking of getting a dog do so in an informed way. My bill is a valuable tool in the box alongside other on-going work set out by the Scottish Government in the minister’s evidence.

The animal welfare issues, emotional distress, massive vets’ fees and high mortality rates as a result of illegal puppy farming and the buying of dogs that people cannot care for have been well established in evidence to the committee. Evidence from key stakeholders supporting my bill demonstrates the scale of the issue. The Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has estimated that the illegal puppy trade is worth £13 million a year in Scotland. The Dogs Trust has highlighted the huge rise in problems that have arisen from people buying dogs that they cannot properly look after. Abandonment rates are rising—there was an item on the news this morning in which it was shown that abandonment rates are still on the rise—and 96 per cent of rehoming centres have reported an increase in behavioural issues.

Calls to the SSPCA helpline about giving up pets have quadrupled. Costs, vet care and inappropriate living conditions are cited as common reasons. A recent survey found that only 29 per cent of people considered cost when they got their pet.

Dogs are the most frequently abandoned animal, and rehoming centres are experiencing incredible pressures. Battersea Dogs & Cats Home found that only 5 to 10 per cent of puppies across the UK come from licensed breeders, who should ensure healthy puppies and appropriate new owners. It follows that 95 per cent of puppies are bought from unlicensed sellers.

Awareness of the signs of unscrupulous breeding is low. A report by the People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals found that only 43 per cent of dog owners knew that a puppy should be seen with its mother. The SSPCA highlighted that 65 per cent of owners found their pets online—with £2.5 million of associated fraud. Twenty per cent of puppies bought online fall ill or die within a year, according to Government-commissioned research.

The Dogs Trust’s submission describes the purpose of the bill to be

“educating and providing prospective dog owners with the tools to purchase or rehome a dog more responsibly, and to identify and avoid unscrupulous breeding practices.”

That is the crux of what the bill would achieve: educating to change the behaviours of the public and prevent many of the problems that I have highlighted. That is why the general principles of the bill are supported by the clear majority of organisations that have submitted written evidence to the committee, including the SSPCA, the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, Blue Cross, the Dogs Trust, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home and a number of local authorities.

Before I answer questions, I will make two key points on the contents of the bill.

The question why we need a new code when the Government could just revise and promote the old one has been raised. The code in the bill serves a purpose that is very different from that of the existing code. Given that distinctive purpose, it will have a different appearance. It applies to a different group of people, and a new certificate and associated process are attached to it. It applies to people who are considering acquiring a dog; the existing code applies to people who already own one.

The code in the bill and the certificate process would do three additional key things. First, they would make people think twice if they realise that they cannot afford a dog or that it would not fit their lifestyle or living space. Secondly, they would help people to have more time to identify the right breed for them and their circumstances. Thirdly, they would help people to assess the situation that a puppy is being sold in and give them clear warning signs that they may be buying from the illegal puppy trade.

The code will also be short and easily understood. It will be a punchy checklist of key considerations, including the key questions that I set out in my bill. That contrasts with the existing code, which is a long reference document that runs to 28 pages and is linked to a wealth of other reference material. I want my code to be easily understood. Subsuming its contents into the existing code would mean that the key considerations that I seek to get buyers to engage with would get lost and therefore would have less prominence. Furthermore, the distinct purposes of the two codes would be diluted. Clarity would be lost, and the code would therefore be less effective.

I also emphasise the importance of the certificate. No certification process is associated with the existing code. Certification seeks to ensure that anyone who is buying a dog will reflect on the questions to be answered as part of that certification. That will prompt them to reflect on the questions and, I hope, to reflect further.

The briefest consideration of those questions will give pause for thought—no pun intended—to those who are buying a puppy through online sales, through consideration of the cost and the breed, questioning why they cannot see the mother with the puppy and so on, as will asking them to sign the certificate and confirm that they understand the need to retain it in case the authorities should have cause to see it.

That is based on a process that is followed in France, where, as of 2022, a certificate has been required when buying a dog or a number of other animals. Both my certificate and the French certificate require the provider to sign the certificate, which creates a responsibility on the supplier to ensure that the acquirer has gone through all the necessary steps in the checklist of questions that are contained in the certificate.

I have listened carefully to the evidence that the committee has received and to the recurring themes in members’ questions. On the point about the Government being able to do the work that is required to create a new code without my bill, the policy work, drafting, consultation and scrutiny have already been undertaken, and the Government has made it clear that it supports the code and the certification process and has even considered how it would amend the bill at stage 2. How would asking the Government to begin that work again be a good use of the time of the Parliament, the Government and the animal charity sector among others, or improve the welfare of animals?

In addition, the bill includes a legislative requirement for the code to be publicised. That requirement, combined with an acknowledgement from the minister that the costs associated with that element of the bill seem entirely reasonable, gives assurances that awareness raising will definitely happen. That is the key difference between a new, successful code and a new certification process and the existing code, about which there are very low awareness levels among the public and which has not been revisited or revised since 2010.

I am just coming to the end now—I see the clerk looking agitated.

On part 2 of the bill, members will have seen the letter that I sent to the minister last week. I am wholly committed to the intention behind part 2 to improve traceability, so that any dog that is being sold or transferred in Scotland needs to be on a searchable database. That would enable the public to take informed decisions when sourcing a puppy. It would also aid enforcement and make puppies that are sold outwith either regime—including those sold through the illegal puppy trade—far easier to identify.

That said, if an alternative is being actively pursued by the Government through the use of microchipping that would deliver the benefits of part 2 by another means, that would merit close consideration as a viable alternative to the register of unlicensed litters that I propose, especially given the Government’s indication that it will seek to remove part 2 by amendment at stage 2.

I am still arguing for those provisions but, if push comes to shove with part 2, I would be content for the committee—if necessary and if the committee wants—to remove the provisions about the register for the time being, and I would undertake to accept the Government’s amendment, subject to our moving on with a microchipping national database.

It is not voluntary in that sense. Section 4 says:

“Before acquiring the dog, the prospective acquirer is to complete a certificate”.

It says “is to complete”, not “may complete”, so completing the certificate is mandatory.

There are too many people who, for good reasons, do not reflect before they acquire animals. We see that in the number that are being abandoned and in the vast criminal puppy trade. It can cost £2,500 for a puppy that has been brought here, often in dreadful and desperate conditions.

Earlier, I talked about the purpose of the bill—it is to ensure that people think twice. A person will have to complete a certificate relating to the matters mentioned in section 4(4)—they have to go through all that. They have to think twice, thrice or four times before they maybe say at the end of that, “Yes, I do want to get a dog, but I had better not get that breed,” or, “I’ve got to go and see it with its mother and not buy online.” There is a huge increase in the online selling of little teddy bear puppies and very popular dogs, and often the results are puppies that are poorly bred and poorly trained and that come from really bad sources. It is about all-round good-egg stuff for the animal and the person who is getting it.

The major onus is on suppliers, as many of them are in business—some are not, but most of them are. There would be a duty on the Scottish Government to publicise the proposed code. There is also the certificate, which will require a change in engagement. We rarely say to people that, if they have read a code or the legislation, they need to sign something saying that they have read and understood it.

Engagement should be a process of saying, “You’re part of this.” Part of the issue that I want the public to understand is that they are the custodians and are policing the welfare of Scotland’s puppies and young dogs that come into the system. I go back to the fact that demand will change the nature of supply. My expectation is that informed demand—it is a horrible expression—will mean that the puppies that come through the system will change. People will say, “Wait a minute. I have seen the puppy online. I know that I can’t take it. I’m not supposed to do this. I don’t know who this person is.”

Alternatively, they might see somebody at a market who has some puppies in their van. The trouble is that people think that they are rescuing animals, but they are not. If you see a puppy in a distressed state with its big eyes and you think, “I’ll take it,” all that happens is that, in the conveyor belt of these factory farms, some bitch is being put through the system to produce more puppies. By signing the certificate, you become part of regulating and part of the system.

I think that that is good for owners. I get quite emotional about this because, due to my lifestyle, I cannot have a dog. I have gone through those tests myself and said, “I can’t do this,” because I have the cat and I am not there and all those things, including my age, which has to be taken into account. People have to go through that process and say to themselves, “I’ll be hard.” If they must, there are other ways of enjoying the company of dogs, such as fostering or going into pet shelters to take them for walks, but maybe it is not right for them to have a dog.

What distresses me is that, in the six years that I have been working on the issue, the system has got worse. If it had not got worse, I would have packed it in. I would not need to be arguing for change—I could leave it to the Government—but the point is that the Government has not changed the existing code. By introducing the bill and pushing the Government to put a new code through, we move the dial—to use that horrible expression.

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.