Meeting of the Parliament 09 May 2024
We do not have any specifics about that, but everyone on the committee certainly understood that organised crime, gangs and so on could play a big part in the trafficking of dogs, particularly in my constituency of Galloway and West Dumfries, where we see dogs coming through Cairnryan.
The minister agreed that it is increasingly difficult for those who want to buy a dog to know whether a breeder is reputable. On the basis of evidence, the committee agreed that further measures are needed to focus on the demand rather than the supply of puppies and dogs.
I turn to the specifics of the bill. Part 1 seeks to introduce a code of practice for the acquisition of a dog. The main issue with that provision is that the Scottish Government already has the power to introduce a code of practice. Indeed, it has already introduced a code of practice on the welfare of dogs, albeit that it focuses on good practice around owning a dog rather than around the acquisition of a dog.
Views are mixed on whether a new stand-alone code is required or whether the existing code should be amended. Animal welfare organisations support a single amended code. The Dogs Trust told us that that would make “perfect sense”, and the Scottish SPCA argued that having a single code would make it easier to prove, in the event of any formal proceedings, that someone had known where to look for guidance.
However, Christine Grahame, felt that, if the bill’s provisions were included in the existing code, they would “get lost in translation”—earlier, she compared the code to “War and Peace”—and would be diluted and would not be as effective. The minister told us that it was time for the existing code to be refreshed but would not be drawn on whether the Scottish Government agreed with the idea of a separate, stand-alone code or whether Christine Grahame’s proposals would be incorporated in any refresh of the existing code.
It is fair to say that this was the one aspect of the bill on which there was less consensus among committee members, but the majority of members agreed that the proposed code should be stand-alone, concise and accessible.
We made a number of other recommendations in relation to part 1. We recommended that section 2 should be amended to remove the questions that the proposed code would require prospective dog owners to ask when acquiring a dog. The committee felt that it would be more appropriate to have the flexibility to change the questions in the future.
We recommended that the provision that the bill should come into effect within six months of royal assent should be amended, because we felt that that would not leave sufficient time for an effective consultation.
We recommended that the bill should apply to all dogs, not just pets. We were persuaded by Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, which argued that working dogs should share the same level of protection as pet dogs.
In addition, we recommended that the new code should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the same way as the existing code.
We agreed with the proposal for a certificate to confirm that parties have adhered to the code, although concerns were raised about the lack of enforcement provisions, and we agreed with the advisory approach, which seeks to educate, rather than penalise, dog owners. We agreed, too, that publicising the code would be fundamental to its success. Although we noted the minister’s view that the expected costs would be sufficient, we also noted the existence of a general view that publicity campaigns rarely fulfil their potential.
Part 2 seeks to introduce a registration scheme for puppy litters in situations in which a breeding licence is not already required. Animal welfare organisations supported that proposal, arguing that it would improve traceability and address the defects associated with microchipping. However, concerns were expressed about the proposal that the litter, rather than the breeder, would require to be registered, and the minister expressed concerns that registration in itself would not protect welfare and could provide “false legitimacy” to unscrupulous breeders.
Concerns were also raised about how much it would cost local authorities to implement a register, and although part 2 would not be implemented until a time when local authorities had more money, the committee felt that, without a clearer timetable, a register was not a workable solution. The minister was open to the suggestion that the Scottish Government should seek to amend the bill to remove that provision, and the committee agreed that an alternative approach would offer a more effective and quicker way of improving traceability for puppies and dogs.
15:22