Amendment 104, in the name of Sarah Boyack, is grouped with amendments 83 to 86, 153 to 156, 198, 88 and 23. I call Sarah Boyack to move amendment 104 and speak to the amendments in the group.

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

Against

Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)

I call Graham Simpson to move amendment 12 and to speak to any other amendments in the group. [Interruption.] I am sorry—did I say “move”? I meant to say “speak to amendment 12 and any other amendments in the group”.

I heard every word that you said—keep going. I am listening intently, Mr Simpson.

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

Against

Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)

The result of the division is: For 3, Against 4, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 14 disagreed to.

I invite the minister to speak to amendment 165 and other amendments in the group.

Before I go any further, I declare an interest that is not one of my entries in the register of interests. I have, sitting at home, seven four-week-old Labrador puppies that will no doubt be clamouring to be fed, although perhaps not to see me. We and, I think, others who own dogs take puppies very seriously.

I will not be so ungallant as to suggest that I do not remember the song that Christine Grahame mentioned about the puppy dog in the window. I clearly remember that song. I am very glad that we have moved on from the days when puppy dogs for sale were in the windows of pet shops, which sparked people to go into shops and buy them on impulse.

What is not to like about the bill? It talks about improving the health and wellbeing of dogs. We all want to do that. We need to remember when we talk about the bill that two thirds of households across the United Kingdom have pets in them.

Pet ownership is a really big undertaking. I do not believe that it is a right; I think that one must seriously consider it before taking it on. When it comes to buying a puppy, the price varies. It can be as low as £1,000 and can go up to £2,500 to £3,000. It is a huge investment to buy a properly bred puppy from somebody who has looked after it properly. It is a big expense every time one buys a sack of food: it costs about £34 for 15kg of food.

It is also a big expense to take dogs to the vet. Vets do not cost 50p, and rightly so, because they give excellent care to our dogs. Last year, I took one of my dogs to the vet school in Edinburgh. Unfortunately, the treatment that it got was not sufficient to save the dog, but it was hugely expensive. There comes that choice, when we look after a pet; we have to understand the whole-life cost of taking on the pet.

There are parts of the bill that I agree with. I am happy with part 1. The code of practice and the questions that are in it are really good. The questions are ones that we should be asking ourselves.

I like that the bill says that puppies below eight weeks of age cannot be sold. Why would a person want to do that? It is not in the puppy’s interest or in its mother’s interest. It is also good news that the bill would require people to see the mother before buying a puppy. That gives a really good indication of the health of the puppies and of how the mother is being looked after, which I think gives an indication of whether one is getting a decent puppy.

I have a slight problem with the provision relating to the certificate that must be signed and the fact that it must be kept for the duration of the puppy’s life. One might hope to have a dog for 14 years, if one gets a good run of things. I am not sure that I can find all the paperwork for my eldest dog, who is 10 years old at the moment—it is in a desk somewhere—so I am a bit concerned that keeping the certificate might be difficult. I am also slightly worried about enforcement, should one be unable to produce the certificate. That would probably not happen through lack of trying, so some people might be caught out.

No, I cannot, but my wife can. She reminds me of where my marriage certificate is at all times.

I like part 1 of the bill, but I would like to see a bit more scrutiny of it at stage 2.

I am conscious of time. I just want to comment on microchipping. I believe that it is important to microchip dogs. Puppies are taken to the vet at eight weeks for that to be done. That is probably the earliest suitable time to put a slightly larger needle into the dog.

If the puppy changes hands and the new owner does not change the database to keep it up to speed, however, that could be a problem. I was privileged to be part of the British Veterinary Association dinner at which I heard that vets do not want to have to police the database to ensure that the dog that they are treating has the right microchip. They want to give the dog the best treatment possible; they do not want to worry about that when the dog is presented. We have no way of policing the database.

I am happy with part 1, but less happy about part 2 of the bill. However, I am very happy to support the bill this evening and I look forward to being given the opportunity at stage 2 to lodge amendments on areas of concern.

I think that five companies provide microchips across the United Kingdom. The problem is not so much collating the information from those microchips but the fact that people do not keep the data on them up to date. For example, when they change dogs, they do not register that fact. The whole system is fraught with problems. I understand that vets, too, are concerned about being the ones to police microchipping. Does Rhoda Grant think that that aspect might need more thought and that part 2 of the bill should be considered again?