Chamber and committees

I was generally supportive of Rhoda Grant’s amendments, but I do not have a vote.

I am glad to see that there has been some movement, because I think that the issue is terribly important. Vets are the very people who do not want disasters involving an owner and their puppy or dog, or an animal that is in poor condition.

Again, we return to something that is in the shadows of the bill: puppy farming and the importing of puppies that people buy online. People might have no idea about that. If they have a preliminary meeting with a vet, a conversation about that will open up. Although the bill does not deal directly with that aspect, sitting behind it is the current practice of people buying puppies out the back of cars, online and so on. That is the thrust of it, and I think that that makes vets the very people to be part of that information loop, if I can call it that.

On the Government’s amendments, the code of practice and the associated certificate are not legally binding.

It will help the committee if I quote the existing code of practice for the welfare of dogs. The second paragraph of the preface says:

“Generally, there is a duty to comply with legislation. Although the Code does not have legislative effect, it is intended to promote and give examples of good practice.”

Here is the killer line:

“Failure to comply with a provision of this Code, whilst not an offence in itself, may be relied upon as tending to establish liability where a person has been accused of an offence under Part 2 of the Act.”

The next sentence says:

“Equally, compliance with a provision of the Code may be relied upon as tending to negate liability by a person in any proceedings for an offence under Part 2 of the Act.”

Without trying to be too boring, I note that section 6(2) of my bill says:

“In any proceedings for a relevant offence—

(a) failure to comply with a relevant provision of the code of practice may be relied on as tending to establish liability, and

(b) compliance with a relevant provision of the code of practice may be relied on as tending to negative liability.”

That is lifted straight from the previous code of practice, so I do not see the problem. All that my bill does is replicate the existing code of practice. The issue is evidential and has nothing to do with perception.

I thank Rachael Hamilton.

As the committee knows, at stage 1, I took the position that it was important to have a separate, stand-alone, simple code that related to the acquisition of a dog or a puppy. The difference between such a code and the existing code is that the existing code is for people who already have a dog. My proposed code represents a pre-emptive strike to make sure that people have taken account of all the welfare and accommodation issues in advance of proceeding to acquire a dog. Therefore, I do not support what Rachael Hamilton is proposing.

I have an ancillary comment. The existing code is 36 pages long, so it is pretty cumbersome. I say, with respect, that I do not think that many people will have read it. If they have read it, I think that they will have done so after they have got a dog. The code that I am looking to introduce will be on one side of A4 and will be written in simple language; it will not be complicated. I want people not to desist from reading it because it has too many pages, and to have a look at it in advance of getting a dog. Although it will be written in a similar style to the existing code, it will, I hope, be a very easy read, as it will use straightforward, conversational language. I know that that is not mentioned in my bill at the moment; we will come on to that later. I want my proposed code to be written in conversational language so that people can understand in simple terms what they will be taking on if they get a dog. That is in the best interests of the dog or puppy and, indeed, the potential owner.

Obviously, I reject Rachael Hamilton’s wrecking amendment, which would completely take my bill out of the picture.

The minister says that the amendments that he has lodged—a substantial number of them—offer flexibility, but I think that they water things down a bit. Amendment 10, for example, would delete “giving effect to” and substitute it with “must have regard to”. To me, that is not offering flexibility. You could call it flexibility, but it gives an awful lot more leeway to the Government than “giving effect to”, which is about actually doing what the legislation says. Similarly, in changing “must” to “may”, amendment 11 is a change from making something mandatory to making it discretionary. To me, that is not flexibility—that is weakening the legislation. Therefore, I do not accept those amendments.

Amendment 15 will change the six-month period to 12 months. I am not happy about it, but, if I have a consideration and an undertaking from the minister that it will be “up to” 12 months, I will not go to the wall about it. What is six months between friends if it is changed to seven months, let us say, because it is “up to” 12 months? I will be keeping an eye on that timescale.

To Finlay Carson I say that I am relaxed about what the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee wants to do—whether it is a case of affirmative or negative procedure. It is expert in this area, so it is a matter for that committee at the end of the day. I do not have any issues with that, as I think I said previously to you.

To Rhoda Grant I say that I accept amendments 64, 67, 68 and 70, which change the phrasing to “must”, making it mandatory—I am sorry; I think that I have jumped over a group. I knew that I would go astray. I think that I have missed one. I am just checking to make sure that I have not missed speaking to something that I intended to speak about while I have the chance.

No, I think that that is it—my apologies, convener. Thank you very much.

Will the minister concede that my wording is lifted, word for word, from the Government’s own code of practice, which says:

“Although the Code does not have legislative effect, it is intended to promote and give examples of good practice”?

Is it not the case that the bill duplicates that?

Rachael Hamilton has been helpful, in a sense—perhaps she did not mean to be—about the code being targeted at the point before you acquire a puppy or a dog. Any publicity campaign would simply be aimed directly at people buying online or out the back of a car or a lorry, or at people thinking that they were rescuing the dog. Those are all methods that we know that serious organised criminals use. We know that the puppies cost £3,500 or £4,000, and that there are maybe six crammed into a crate, having been taken away from their mothers and not being socialised. The code will get people to focus on that narrow aspect, because that sort of thing is still happening.

I am going to acquiesce, which is new for me. The list of questions in my bill that require to be answered are clear and cover key considerations that anyone should work through before deciding whether they are able to look after a dog, including with regard to the breed and the person’s situation. However, I heard what the minister said, and we now have an assurance, which is on the record in red letters, that the code will be put into plain English. I do not want words such as “acquire” or “environment” to be used, if possible. I want the code to say things such as “getting a dog” or “caring for a dog” in clear English that is simple to understand; it does not need to be complicated.

The questions that I included in my bill were just the questions that anyone would ask themselves. I appreciate that the language is not legalese. I am happy with that, and I want the code to be in conversational language.

I think that Ariane Burgess’s amendment is a good one. One of the key things that she suggested is that someone might ask the vet whether they were aware of the breeder or the bitch that their dog came from. If someone went to see the vet in advance and registered with them, if they were good, they might even give advice, if the query—

I am content with all of the Government’s amendments in the group as they will make the language in the bill clearer in a number of ways. I support the changes in relation to seeing the mother with the puppy and ensuring that the puppy is at least eight weeks old.

I listened to your comments, convener, but it seems to me that your amendment 69 duplicates what the Government is already doing. If I have got that wrong, I will be interested to hear what is said, but I do not have a vote; I am just listening to the debate.

I support the policy intention behind Ariane Burgess’s amendments. I am particularly interested in the provision on the transfer of any health records. That goes back to the issue that, broadly speaking—although not always—when puppies are imported from puppy farms, they have dreadful health conditions and behavioural problems. That is well documented. I very much welcome that provision, but I hear what the minister had to say. I will be interested to see what the committee decides.