Chamber and committees

We will do that.

Yes.

We need to have a discussion about the wording around the bill and the code of practice, to address some of the concerns about advisory and directory. I get the wider point, and I have probably said something fairly similar to what you have just said, which is that, by having something in a bill such as this, it has heft behind it.

You know how these things work, Mr Carson—you have been doing it long enough.

There are a couple of things to say in response to that. In 2021, we made changes to that process, and I have to give Christine Grahame credit for prompting that. Initially, Ms Grahame was looking at doing work on the welfare of dogs. Changes were proposed with regard to the breeding of three litters and upwards a year needing to be licensed and registered, and that was a good move—that has really made a difference to the whole regime.

These are my issues. There will be families and individuals whose pet dog will have one litter or perhaps they have another dog that has a second litter, or whatever. That is not necessarily a breeding business. That is a family whose dog has had a litter, and I do not think that it can be classed in the same way as a business.

My main issue is that local authorities already have responsibility for licensed breeders that can breed three litters and above. To add a register for unlicensed breeders would add too much of a burden, and I am not convinced about what it would achieve for animal welfare.

There are also responsible people in this situation who will apply when they have a litter, whereas irresponsible people will not. How can local authorities enforce that? The personnel power that would be needed for that is unquantifiable. How would the people be identified and quantified? Again, we are talking about what is probably a domestic situation.

Karen Adam made a good point in an earlier meeting. Mistakes happen, not to put too fine a point on it, and, all of a sudden, you might find that your unneutered dog is having puppies in your kitchen at 4 in the morning. You might not have the wherewithal or the time for that and, all of a sudden, you have to be licensed as a dog breeder. That is onerous and probably unmanageable from local authorities’ point of view at a time when they are stretched and finding it difficult to provide the services that they already provide.

To be fair to Ms Grahame, the policy memorandum recognised the enforcement burden on local authorities, but there is also a cost to establishing and maintaining such a register and the personnel who would enforce it. I just do not see how it would be workable.

That is my reason for my support of the general principles of the bill, particularly around education of the buyer and so on, but I am not convinced that the registration of unlicensed breeders is needed, that it would have an effect and that it would be workable.

The part of the bill that says an unlicensed operator could do what?

I accept that. On part 2, you are right—it is a suggestion. However, we already have the powers to put a register in place under previous legislation. I agree with you that the wording of part 2 does not mean that a register would have to happen; you just want the ability for it to happen. I hope that I have outlined some concerns that you might want to address when you give evidence and as you take the bill forward.

That depends on the shape or form in which the bill goes through Parliament. There are two parts to it. If it goes through in its current form, there will be a registration system for unlicensed breeders and—

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the committee’s evidence sessions on Christine Grahame’s Welfare of Dogs (Scotland) Bill. As we all know, animal welfare is not only an important issue but an emotive one. The Government takes animal welfare very seriously and is committed to the highest possible welfare standards. We welcome Ms Grahame’s effort in this area and support the general principles of the bill. We need to emphasise to people that they must be responsible owners and act responsibly when deciding to buy a dog or take one into their lives. The bill will help to do that.

The low-welfare puppy trade is unacceptable and is an area that the Scottish Government has been concerned about for many years. We have worked closely with stakeholders such as the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Dogs Trust to improve enforcement and understanding of the welfare problems and the risks to buyers associated with criminal activity behind the trade. That has included marketing campaigns, which were effective at raising awareness of the importance of seeing puppies with their mother before buying. We know that the movement restrictions during the Covid pandemic meant that that was not possible for a significant period and that there was an increased demand for puppies to be kept as family pets. It is therefore appropriate to consider again what more can be done to influence changes in buyers’ behaviour so that they make the right choices when sourcing a pet.

We look forward to hearing stakeholders’ views, as well as those of the committee, and we will consider carefully the committee’s stage 1 report. We have some issues with the framing of some parts of the bill, which we consider might benefit from amendment. We are very happy to discuss that with the committee and Ms Grahame during the bill process, but I hope that we will be able to reach an agreement on those and other matters so that we can arrive at a bill, at stage 3, that everyone can support and that will have a tangible impact on dog welfare.

I would respond to any recommendation that the committee made to me. That is a general professional response. Any recommendation that the committee made, whether it took the form of a letter, a stage 1 report or communication from the convener, would get a response from me.