Chamber and committees

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.

I am probably about to repeat myself. The issue with part 1 is about the wording of any code of practice. At the moment, some of the wording looks directive rather than advisory. Not too much would be required in order to make that clearer.

Without putting words into Christine Grahame’s mouth, I think that the intention behind part 1 of her bill is to be advisory rather than directive. In her policy memorandum, she has stated that she wants to achieve

“behavioural change, without placing formal ... obligations on the parties involved”.

Some amendments are required to the wording, to make that clear.

I have already mentioned to other members the prescriptive content of the code of practice in the bill. I never feel that such a thing is particularly helpful. As has been mentioned, when things are on the face of the bill and circumstances change, that takes up parliamentary time. What we need in the bill is something that would not necessarily require adaptation but would have flexibility built in: a code of practice for X that could be added to and changed over time.

Another aspect is the code of practice being ready within six months of royal assent. I have talked about the code of practice in the bill not being prescriptive, and the most useful course of action when a bill is passed that requires a code of practice is for the code to go out for consultation again once the legislation has been passed. Six months is not enough time for that to be achieved. If the bill is to have the impact that Ms Grahame wants—we all know that she cares very much for the welfare of animals—the best thing to do is have a consultation that means that the code of practice is the best that it can be, and we would require more than six months for that.

Maybe that should be explored. My impression was that the bill is about the purchasing of all puppies, regardless of whether they will be a pet or whether they will necessarily be in someone’s home. My understanding is that Ms Grahame’s bill is about decisions on purchasing a puppy or a dog in general.

Okay.