Chamber and committees

Because that is not in the bill, it is not something that I have necessarily an answer to—

I will finish my response. If that had been put into the bill, we could have addressed it.

That is a key question. As I was listening to it, I was thinking about two things. On the one hand—as with quite a lot of this bill—the responsible people will sign up, but the question is: how can we find the people who do not? I do not know—it is impossible.

The other unintended consequence is that if people think that there might be penalties associated with not registering, they might not seek veterinary assistance. What if a household gets caught out and finds itself with a litter? They might want to move the litter on to people whom they know, advertise or whatever, but they might also be worried about the expense of everything else involved. If they cannot afford that, they might worry that, when they take the puppies to the vet for a check-up, the vet might phone the council to say that they are not registered.

It is a complex issue. We have to take into account the fact that we are not talking about people who are breeding for an income; after all, having up to two litters is not a business. We are probably talking about families who are going through a once or twice-in-a-lifetime experience. They might want to let their dog have a litter and to sell the puppies to people in their community whom they might know. Should they then have to do this onerous task? Perhaps I should take away the word “onerous”, as Christine Grahame is not suggesting anything onerous, but what does it really achieve?

The other question that I keep coming back to is this: does being on a register give some kind of false legitimacy to the welfare issues around puppies? That is a worry, too.

I could not have put it better.

I do not really know what to say to that. Are you expecting members of the public to phone up and identify neighbours with a litter of puppies?

Convener, that is a statement rather than a question.

That is a fair point. We could, of course, amend the existing code of practice, which would not require any legislation. I have heard animal welfare organisations say, in the committee and outwith it, that they would not want two codes of practice. I see their point, which I have some sympathy with.

At the same time, Ms Grahame’s bill could shine an additional spotlight on the issues. Such organisations have said that advice for those who are adopting or buying dogs would help in getting the messages across to the public. Having a parliamentary bill to focus on that would provide that spotlight and allow dog purchasers to buy with confidence.

I have not yet mentioned the issues with adopting dogs from other countries. Good practice guidance on that is not in the current code of practice. It is up to the committee to decide whether legislation is required, but my view is that a bill could shine a spotlight.

Yes, we absolutely are. I have alluded to certain areas in which there could usefully be more updated advice, particularly on the health issues associated with some breeds. The Kennel Club has been lobbying the UK and Scottish Governments on that, highlighting some of the health issues that are associated with dogs that are particularly fashionable at the time—they are on Instagram, influencers have them, and so on. We might smile, but they are influencers for a reason. People might rush into buying a dog and find out a year down the line that the dog is seriously ill or has issues that mean that they have to pay an absolute fortune, month on month, for medication to keep the dog healthy, which they had not factored into their household budget.

With regard to the code of practice outlined in Ms Grahame’s bill, I said in my opening statement that there are some areas in the bill that we would like to be amended, and we think that this particular provision is quite prescriptive at the moment. I believe that, where a code of practice is associated with legislation, the work on such a code should be done through consultation once the bill is passed. After all, you might well get views from a large range of stakeholders on what should be in it. As a result, I would not want a prescriptive provision in primary legislation tying us to a definitive code of practice, given that such a code might usefully cover other areas.

Gosh! I am not entirely sure that I can answer that question. I have been responsible for animal welfare since June, by which point Ms Grahame’s bill was well under way. I also know that a lot of members have raised dog ownership issues and that there have been other bills, petitions et cetera on the subject.

We have really just been concentrating on the campaigns that I have mentioned and which come off the back of our partnership work with organisations. We help to promote and fund such campaigns, and there is also what might be called the rolling work that we do on highlighting issues around dog ownership. We think that that has been reasonably successful in raising public awareness.

As has been said, the code of practice has not been revised. Given that it came off the back of a piece of legislation in 2006 and was not enacted until 2009, I agree that it is time for a refresh. It is possible that, if Ms Grahame had not introduced the bill, we might have been looking at doing that work.

Dr Allan, you have hit upon my issue with prescribing what should be in that code of practice. We would like to see amendments made to that provision. If we are too prescriptive about what is in a code of practice that is in a bill, we need secondary legislation to amend it as things change and go forward.

As I have said in my responses to other members, things do change. Trends change in dog ownership, breeding standards change, and different types of dogs with different issues come on the market. We see that all the time. People who are involved in the less-than-professional aspect of puppy breeding are clever and able to do things to avoid detection. They are fleet of foot in any aspect of duping the public into thinking that they are responsible breeders. Therefore, notwithstanding that we have not revised the 2009 code, which is an issue for us to discuss, having a prescriptive code of practice in the bill would make it harder to change, because it would have to go through Parliament as secondary legislation.