Chamber and committees

My understanding is that the updating and everything else to do with the register would fall to the local authority. I have in front of me the estimated costs. The cost of setting up the register is estimated to be about £20,000—I presume that that is for every local authority to set up a database—and the maintenance of that is estimated to cost about £16,000 a year. I see that as only part of the costs—there would also be the cost of enforcement in relation to people registering.

There is another issue to consider. I worry that being on a register would almost act as a false kite mark for the puppies and the breeder. It does not have much in the way of responsibilities associated with it. It does not come with any of the conditions that licensed breeders have to meet, around inspection and other animal welfare concerns.

Going back to our concerns about the individuals and organisations that are involved in puppy trafficking, I worry that, if there is a public register, families with a dog might be targeted by those people as a front for their operations. We have already seen that sort of thing before with puppies being brought in from outwith Scotland or the UK; there have been cases of people renting, say, Airbnbs and finding a bitch there that is not, in fact, the mother of those puppies. People come to what they think is a family home, when it is not.

Potentially—this is just a niggle that I have—such a register could act almost as a kite mark type of front that would add legitimacy to something that was otherwise not legitimate. That is just a little worry that I have about this.

You might have to wait a couple of weeks.

There are a couple of things that I would say in response to that. First, going back to the issues that we have described with regard to the illegal puppy trafficking trade, I would point to a number of things that are being done UK-wide as well as in Scotland on the traceability of puppies. For example, it is the owner’s responsibility, by law, to get their dog microchipped, and one possibility might be to adapt microchipping databases to cover more than just the owner’s address. Initially, microchipping was about being able to trace lost pets, whereas now it is more about traceability. Should databases contain information about breeders? Could they? Would that necessarily add anything? Again, these illegal organisations are very clever at circumventing such things. In any case, though, there are already multiple databases for microchipped dogs, and there is good awareness in that respect.

Of course, with pedigree dogs, there is additional administration in the form of Kennel Club certificates. Anyone who buys a pedigree dog or who responds to an advertisement for a pedigree dog would be very silly indeed if they bought the dog without seeing its Kennel Club registration. I think that there is decent public awareness of that. If someone is going to spend upwards of £1,000 on, say, a King Charles spaniel puppy, it would be very silly if they came away without the associated documentation that told them about its parents and grandparents—that is, the kind of registration that we already have. There is already a traceability element in that respect. Of course, that does not cover all dogs; not all dogs are Kennel Club registered, and, indeed, people will buy dogs that are not KC registered, too.

Dog breeding is licensed under the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (Scotland) Regulations 2021. I have already mentioned the situation for those with three-plus litters, which means that they are effectively breeding businesses and as a result, they have to be registered and licensed. There is quite a lot of information there.

Moreover—and I just want to look this up first, because I do not want to get it wrong—there was the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill that the UK Government introduced. The Scottish Parliament gave that bill legislative consent in January 2022. The bill proposed to set an age limit on puppies for import; those below a certain age would not be able to be imported. That would have added to traceability, but, unfortunately, the bill was dropped, although I believe that the provisions could come back in a private member’s bill next year. I would welcome that, and I hope that the Parliament would give legislative consent again, as that would be another tool in the box.

Part of the problem that Ms Grahame’s bill is trying to address is the importing of puppies from parts of the world that do not have the strict regulations that this country has. Such provisions would be a welcome step that would also add traceability.

There are a number of points. Would the bill solve the problem that we are all wrestling with? No. Would it increase public awareness of good practice, to ensure that buyers came away with a healthy puppy, were ready for dog ownership, would be a responsible dog owner and would make a responsible choice? Yes, I think so.

I ask you to give me a moment. You ask about how data protection would apply, whether the register would be public and what would be available for anybody to look at on the register. You will have the opportunity to ask Ms Grahame how she sees the register functioning, but what would be there for the public to access is one question.

What would a person who wanted to buy a puppy from somebody see on the register? What would show them that they were making a responsible purchase, that the puppy had had its welfare looked after and that they could trust where the puppy had come from? The register would probably have relatively little on that.

The bill asks for names and addresses to be on the register but, even with that, I come back to my little niggle about making available on a public register information about people whose dog could have had just one litter. I worry that they could be targeted by people who might offer them money to act as a front for activities. That is what I worry about most.

That is a good question. To be honest, we are not sold on part 2 of the bill. Would a register of unlicensed individuals whose pet dogs have had a litter of puppies do anything for animal welfare? I am not convinced about that.

I am concerned about what a register would achieve. Before my time as the minister, the Government looked at the question. Maybe Andrew Voas can step in and help me, because he was involved in that. When the Scottish Government looked at the issue, it was decided that such a register would be disproportionately expensive given what it would achieve in addressing animal welfare concerns. I will bring in Andrew Voas, who was involved in that.

Perhaps you should save that question for Christine Grahame. I do not want to tell you what to do, Ms Hamilton, but it might have implications. That is for you to decide. I have set out some of the reasons for our reticence about the registration provisions in part 2 of the bill. However, the committee might take a different view.

While Andrew Voas was speaking, I was able to locate what I wanted to bring to the answer on fraudulent and unlicensed breeders.

A register of the type proposed in the bill would not prevent puppies from being sourced from unlicensed breeders but it could confuse the public or provide false assurance to them because there might be confusion with licensed breeders who have fulfilled all the conditions for their licences. If someone in a house in a certain street with one litter—just a domestic situation—was on a register, they could be confused with a licensed breeder in the public’s mind because of a confusion about what the two registers mean. That is a concern.

I think so, yes.