Felly, rwy'n unrhyw ddiwedd y Gweithio'r dwlaen niol ysgawil fel y Ffyrdd Dlaen niol, yn 2023. Felly, ddigon i hynny yn gyfrifio gyda Jim Fairlight i Rachael Hamilton. Ynolwch i'r ddweud, Fyethd Jeimie Halcro Johnston yw ysgawil viadau. G туwch i'r rhai eisiau gyfwylluges. Felly, rydyn ni'n clywed ddiwedd Fyethd, Fyethd Jeimie Halcro Johnston yw i hynny'n digwydd gei nhw'r gyffin o gydag. Fythd eich gwneud o casnig i fewn y oedd, business J. Hacker Johnson and Sons and the Inner of a Croft and I'm a member of the NFUS and Scottish Land and the States. Our first item of business today is a round table on the welfare of Dogg Scotland Bill and we have up to two hours for questions and discussions. I'd like to start the session by inviting everyone to briefly introduce themselves and then we'll take questions from the members. We welcome the opportunity to provide evidence on the bill this morning. I'm here from the Law Society of Scotland. We regularly engage with bills and other government and wider stakeholder consultations and aim to develop good law. As we do in our written evidence of the committee, we are supportive of the broad principles and intention behind the bill, which is about improving animal welfare standards in Scotland. We have identified the idea of the bill, however, that we would welcome some reconsideration to achieve greater clarity or that may help and achieve the intended aims behind the bill. We look forward to discussing them later this morning. Hi, I'm Gillie Mendes-Farrera, director of innovation and strategic relations at the Scottish SPCA and thank you to the committee for inviting us today. Good morning. I'm Libby Anderson. I'm the chair of the Scottish Committee for the UK Centre for Animal Law. As you know, I'm also a member of the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission and would be able to speak to their submission as well if you'd like that. Thank you. Good morning. I'm Ben Parker, Public Affairs Manager at Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and thank you for inviting us to give evidence today. Good morning. I'm Clare Calder. I'm head of Public Affairs at Dogs Trust and we're also very happy to be giving evidence today. Thank you. Joining us virtually or remotely. Hi, I'm Paulie Conway. I'm head of Public Affairs at the Kennel Club. Apologies, I couldn't make it in person today, but I'm very pleased that you allowed us to join virtually. Thank you very much and thank you all for joining us. I'll kick off the question about very general question. Can I ask you what you believe the main issues are with irresponsible breeding and awareness when acquiring a dog? Do you have first-hand experiences of those problems? I'll kick off with Gillie. Yes, so obviously the Scottish SPCA, this is something that we've been dealing with for a number of years. We do have a special investigations unit whose core purpose is to investigate, particularly crimes related to serious organised crime as well. We have dealt with unscrupulous breeders for a number of years now. In 2021, we investigated 544 reports into the puppy trade. In 2022, this dropped to 124. January to April this year, we've had 25 cases to date. In November and December last year, we uplifted over 30 breeding bitches from a breeding establishment and a further 24 dogs, including 18 puppies, were seized on Christmas day. We are seeing dogs that come into us very sick. We are seeing members of the public who buy pups and within about 48 hours those pups have died. Those animals are coming in from different varieties, some coming in from Ireland. The more advice and guidance you give about asking people you know to see the pups in a home environment, to see it with its mum, what these people are now doing are renting Airbnb properties to set up that fake environment. So it's very hard that often using females that are not related to the pups that are there. They are also putting multiple letters across different properties to again showcase the advice that has been given. They are also now diversifying the activities into canine fertility clinics. There's definitely been demand since the pandemic has dropped and so they're now finding other ways, particularly for high-value breeds, breeds of dogs that cannot give birth naturally, requiring c-sections and so on. So there's lots of different health implications. We have had cases where even a young child court can't be back there from a puppy that they had purchased. We have obviously GRDA and no matter what information you give the public, sometimes the hearts rule their minds. So we have had members of the public who know what they're seeing, isn't the advice that they've been given, but they are still meeting someone in a car park to purchase a puppy out of a boot of a car. During the pandemic, we saw many excuses coming, saying, only you can't visit my property because I've got someone who's shielding, so I'll bring the puppy to you. So it's quite a difficult trade to disrupt because whatever advice you put out, they're quite entrepreneurial and they'll try and appease that advice and find other ways to get around it. So it's continuing to be an issue for us and we're getting to disrupt it. The Canine Fertility Clinic is now something that we are very much focused on because that's how they've diversified into that field. Before I bring anybody else in, we want to look at the purpose of the legislation. The policy memorandum suggests that legislation is necessary due to an increased dog population fuel-bick Covid, as you've said, but there is existing legislation and you've said that you've seized puppies and intervened using legislatures currently in place. What does this bill do that current legislation doesn't allow you to do? I think it puts more responsibility on owners of dogs, so with this bill it allows the opportunity again, that transaction between when it comes to purchasing a pup, having a record, being able to prove that somebody did have the knowledge that they should know what they're doing to look after that animal, they should know what the animal needs and should be able to provide for that. We will sometimes refer to the existing code when, as part of that prosecution to test that kind of, would this person reasonably have known what to do to take care of that animal and this is again would help strengthen that and give another kind of tool to be able to particularly around that certificate and that sort of ownership and that's a big challenge for us. We will get dogs in, microchip details are out of date, you can't prove who owns that animal and that's a big challenge. Okay, thank you. Anybody else like to come in that? Ben? Just to echo, I think Julie's points that we agree there is a need for additional regulation to support the responsible purchase and ownership of dogs. As you spoke to chair just about the COVID-19 pandemic, a well-publicised surgeon demand for puppies during that period and even though we've now seen that demand decreasing ourselves and I'm sure others in the sector have seen an influx of puppies, adolescent dogs being brought to our centres who are perhaps an a rise of in onsite births as well and we're seeing some of those dogs displaying behavioural issues and that maybe as a result of being bred from unsuitable dogs and but also around the challenges of a lack of socialisation that those dogs had and of course a whole lot of new owners as well have taken on dogs for the first time and so I think you know we'll come on to talk about the code of practice and the registration system but I think you know we would support additional regulation at this point in time. Thank you, I think just to echo what both Ben and Julie have said. So in 2020, 22 dog stress re-homed over 700 dogs to Scottish post codes. Last year we had our highest number of handover calls from member of the public in the charities history so we had over 50,000 handover calls inquiries made to the charity. As Ben mentions, I think we're really seeing the kind of repercussions of things like decisions to get a dog during the COVID pandemic, the lockdowns and also the pressures of the cost of living situation that we're seeing at the moment so we are seeing an unprecedented number of requests for dogs to come into our care as well. I think in terms of our other experience and what we can talk about today, dog stress also chairs the pet advertising advisory group and so through that group we and other charities do work with certain engaged websites where pets can be advertised for sale and we do get a lot of insight in terms of what those websites are seeing with the adverts and we also run something called the puppy pilots where dogs trust cares for dogs which are seized at the borders after being illegally imported. Through that scheme we see a huge number of evolving tactics from unscrupulous traders so for example we've seen situations such as fake mums being presented as there's a lot of messaging to always see a puppy with its mum but it's very easy to get a fake mum and pass that off as the puppy's mum. We've seen other tactics such as renting homes to look as though the puppy's come from that home environment. We've seen things such as microchips being put into and been put on the dog's ear or in their fur so they can easily be removed and a UK microchip can be used instead and these are puppies that have been transported in very often really awful conditions for many many hours across Europe. So I think in terms of what we would like to see one of our big concerns at the moment is that we don't have a system with full traceability across all dog breeding and sale so I think what this bill presents is an opportunity to really look at registration of anybody who is breeding or selling a dog and really close that loophole where currently anybody breeding less than three litters can completely evade the system so I think that's one of the biggest things that we're interested in through this bill. Okay I'm interested you know the code you've touched on the code about people wanting to see the mothers and air bnb's being used but the effect of the code is it doesn't in practice make the person liable for any proceeding so at the end of the day it's just a document that you've got to pay to regard to or you don't need to so what does this bill what teeth does it have to put in place some of the safeguards that you've suggested? I think at the moment the code of practice side of things is very much is a tool in terms of educating the public in knowing what to ask when they're buying a dog and that is really really important because again we've seen situations where it's just so easy for anybody looking to get a dog to be duped and so that public awareness and onus on the public to ask the right questions is important but I think importantly the other part of the bill that looks like a registration system I think we've got some suggestions of how that part of the bill could be tightened up and really be an opportunity for Scotland to introduce full traceability across breeding and selling of dogs. Thank you convener. Just to pick up on what Claire's been saying you were asking about the legislation so in order for the Scottish SPCA to intervene that would be the Animal Health and Welfare Scotland act but of course that does not prevent the suffering occurring and the cases that I read the other day on the SSPC website were truly pitiful truly truly appalling suffering so that is what the legislation is aiming to prevent. In terms of prevention we have the licensing but as Claire said that's only if you have three litres or more per year and the anomaly is that the standards that apply to licensed breeders are completely absent when it comes to hobby breeders low level breeders so that is Claire's saying is closing up that loophole and that would be through the registration rather than the code but just just a couple of other things that the bill has the potential to address because the code in particular focuses on the person acquiring the dog and aims to educate them it has the opportunity to address matters like the fashion the fashion for acquiring dogs who are by their very nature and breeding not going to lead good lives and the most egregious example of that is obviously the brachysophallic dogs who have literally have difficulty in breeding and sleeping and reproducing so by educating and by asking people through the code to ask themselves that question that is an opportunity for the bill and also it would require people to explore whether their lifestyle and their routines are suitable for keeping a dog because again that's something that has been found with the acquisition of dogs through the pandemic and now the relinquishment of dogs which is going up all the time and this is because people were getting dogs without really being aware of what was a good plan okay thanks holly yeah I thank you I just was coming back to your original question of what are the main issues with irresponsible dog breeding from our perspective the main issue is that irresponsible dog breeders can get away with it the demand is there there's huge demand for puppies it has leveled off but the demand is is still there and there are current regulations in place but they're not enforced adequately so therefore if you're a bad breeder if you're a rogue breeder if you're importing illegally bred dogs you can pretty much get away with it we FOI local authorities regularly and we they should have been when the regulations went from what since when the regulations were introduced and the litter threshold was lowered from five litres to three litres there should have been a three fold increase in the number of licenses being issued to dog breeders but there has only been a 10% uplift so one of our concerns is we do welcome the principle of of the bill but currently the regulations that are in place at the moment tackle the volume breeders and not being enforced properly so even though we welcome a registration system and it is certainly a really good thing to have standards for all breeders um we know that home breeders are more likely to breed dogs responsibly I think there's been um research alluded to in the in the papers Zambairas PCN University of Edinburgh that the puppy farms are the problem they're the main cause of the problem and that's currently not being being dealt with properly um but partly what big part of that is also because people don't know what questions to ask so with regards to the codes that are being introduced we do think that's really important because currently there's a lot of onus on breeders and that's not being that's not being enforced but there's there's nothing there's no um requirements for people to actually do their research properly before they get a dog which is which is really key because as that is what's driving the demands and if people knew and if people took the time to properly research what they were getting um they might think twice um and there might be fewer calls to to rescue centres as a result because people would have would have worked harder and put the effort in to know what questions to ask themselves and we just we surveyed we did a puppy wise survey just back in august um and a fifth of people still spend less than two hours researching but whether to get a puppy that this is like this is a 15 year commitment and people are spending less than two hours researching um and nearly a third have admitted they wouldn't know how to spot a rogue breeder so for us the educational piece behind this is actually really important because ultimately we need we need members of the public to be demanding better standards of breeders. Can I just clarify something that you you referred to regulations can we just be sure what regulations you are talking about whether they actually apply in Scotland? Yeah the most the most recent breeding regulations which were which came in in 2021. Okay thank you that's helpful um to explore the code of practice whatever in more detail but just before we move on one thing that I'm uncertain about is actually whether the purpose of the legislation is going to deliver more than what we've got at the moment and it appeared to me the only obligation there is on the on the government as it stands is to create a code now the government are able to create a code practice at the moment but I've chosen not to do it this legislation forces them to do that but anything else it's the government may legislate for this or may do that so can I ask Robbie does this really go far enough and ensuring that all the concerns we've just heard are actually addressed legally? Yeah thank you convener I think there's a few points here um as you say the there is the existing power under the 2006 act um to introduce a code of practice that's been in place since 2010 the current code of practice um as you say section one does provide that obligation on Scottish ministers to introduce the code so in that sense it does move along the progression and ensures that a code under the bill would be produced reflecting the provisions in the code looking at um pre-purchase in the relations there. I understand the from other responses and when we've looked at as well there's the potential for overlap between the existing powers to create a code um and the code here we don't have any particular comments as such on the merit of having two separate codes our main comment there would just be around ensuring that there's no contradiction um or overlap between the codes ultimately I think as some of the the other members here today have said that a lot of this will come down to public awareness of the code so to that extent we welcome the provisions in I think section 11 and section seven of the bill in which looks about place obligation of Scottish ministers to take reasonable steps to ensure public awareness but ultimately we've looked as well at enforcement powers and you've mentioned that this morning convener as you say that there isn't the the teeth as such in the enforcement mechanisms of the code at part one similarly at part two there there's concerns around enforcement mechanisms we've mainly looked at the fact that it's all by secondary legislation that Scottish ministers may do do x or y from our perspective that's problematic because it's not the same level of parliamentary scrutiny for for that so I think when we talk about enforcements it's helpful to look at part one enforcements and part two enforcements as opposed to enforcement in that sort of general sense. We'll probably move on to those in more details we'll go through. I'm Alasdair Allan. Thank you, convener. A number of you have identified problems in the current way in which this trade operates and I just wonder whether you could say a bit more about whether you think the code is is the answer to that in terms of it having a potentially deterrent effect on on people who are responsible for bad practice and on a technical point perhaps one for the law society perhaps something for others. The bill does set out to some extent what the code should and shouldn't contain and I just wonder is that normal practice in legislation does anyone have comments on the approach that the bill takes to that? First of all if I could look at the question of the the two codes and potential duplication which was raised if I may and then come back to the content of the bill so there is a slight difference in status between the 2006 act code which would have to be laid before the Scottish Parliament and approved by a resolution so that's absent from this bill but as has been said there would be duplication and we think that for the public to understand what is expected of them which is the aim of the code really to educate the public it would be better to make this as simple and as accessible as possible with regard to the content of the code being on the face of the bill I think we were a bit surprised to see that now dare say Robbie would have a comment to make on that as well I think the drawback to that is that it's inflexible the primary legislation would have to be amended every time you wanted to change the code and science and understanding of behaviour and human behaviour all change it seems really rather rigid to have it on the face of the bill I've got one or two questions about the actual content that's recommended and I'm sure other people will as well but just to to to finish off this point possibly it could be in a schedule which would be more easily amended and I'm sure I have seen that sort of recommendation these specifics but I think it would be better in some ways to put the responsibility the obligation on the Scottish ministers to promote good practice via a code and then to leave the detailed content to more intensive work to be carried out in the fullness of time as long as it happens because it's good that the obligation is there. I think we would echoed much of what Libby just said there we were also have submitted similar comments around the appropriateness of including such detailed guidance and wording in the primary legislation itself in relation to the code for similar reasons in relation to flexibility we've pulled out maybe help for the committee to look at a few examples of analogous codes and one of which comes from the 2006 act so that's the Animal Health and Welfare Scotland act 2006 section 37 that is the the power to introduce existing code that we see 2010 code that uses language to the effect that the code may make provisions about certain things and that's the sort of that type of model that we would expect to see to see consistency across the statute book in this area. There's also another analogous code that we've looked at in the case of the police ethics conduct in scrutiny Scotland bill that's for the parliament at the moment and similarly section 2 of that bill refers to things it may have regard to in the code but these are not in the same level of detail as proposed under the bill that the committee is looking at just now. I think another challenge with the codes and I'm sure it will come up later in the session as well is public awareness of the code so we've got existing codes of practice for dogs and cats in Scotland but we know public awareness of those are very very low so as part of the suggestions from the member putting forward the bill I know that a public awareness campaign has been included I think we would strongly strongly suggest that that is is needed for the public to understand the content of the code and what is being suggested for them. I think I'll address my question initially to Robbie so this is still on the code of practice and so I understand there's an existing code and I'd be interested to hear if that code could simply be updated. I understand there's the powers under the the 2006 act to allow for the code to be revised it's not a point that we've looked at in detail and I think would ultimately be a case of whether the Government would want to update that code. I think we referred earlier to the fact that the bill would provide the impetus to ensure that Scottish ministers would produce a separate code and that there may be merit in a combined approach there but it's not something that we have considered in detail in our written submissions. So what this bill is doing would provide that impetus for them to actually take forward a code? I think the point would be that the bill would would introduce the obligation to create a separate code and then there may be as a bill progresses a desire for a sort of streamlined process there that giving the existing powers and if the bill progressed that may sort of give that impetus to think about a streamlined approach but it's not something that we have actually looked at in detail on that. Thanks very much. Anybody else got any comments about that? I think just in practical terms again thinking of the end user here we've got a member of the public who needs to have that knowledge and understanding when our inspectors in a house having multiple documents is not a easy way to prove that somebody has managed to grasp all that knowledge if they're required to look at various sources of information so I suppose our plea here is to have it simple if it's updating and revising an existing code that would be better from a practical terms as well to prove whether that person should have had that knowledge or not as part of an investigation. By the nature of its term of code of practice perhaps sound a little bureaucratic and not as engaging or as accessible as it might need to be to fulfil its role. I think we really do feel like there is a role here for further education of the public around the responsibilities of dog ownership to kind of echo Gily's point I think and I know I'm sure we'll come on to the specific details of what should be within the code of practice but things like you know it could act as a useful tool to outline even some advice on pet care costs so for example we estimate that it costs 2,000 pounds a year to keep a dog at this current moment of time when lots of people are struggling with the costs of living they may not be aware that that is the figure that you would expect in relation to dog ownership so there are things that the code of practice could do in terms of including advice and redirecting and signposting to existing advice and support elsewhere too and happy to detail some of the things that we think are perhaps missing from the code at the moment when we get to that point in the session. Okay thank you I'm Alasdair Allan. Thank you I just wonder if I can ask a wee bit more about this question of duplication around the code but specifically around sections 2 to 4 or parts 2 to 4 forgive me. Do they actually place any new legal obligations on buyers and sellers? I know Gily you think you touched on this but are we dealing with something that's purely advisory or will people experience new legal obligations as a result of this? I think from the code the code is advisory you can utilise it as a tool in amongst the existing legislation on the animal health and welfare Scotland act but yes the code is an advisory tool I know we're going to come on to sort of registration and certificates and so on which would have a bit more weighting and the biggest challenge is lack of traceability that Claire's obviously covered and we feel that this bill could be used as a vehicle to try and get us to that really optimum solution of having that traceability. I've got Beatrice Wishart. I think we'll come on to the required content of the code so do you agree with the required content and do you think that the content should be specified on the face of the bill and is there anything missing from the prescribed content and we've seen respondents made a number of suggestions for additional things which could be prescribed on the face of the bill including microchipping requirements, vaccination needs, providing proper care for a dog and as Libby alluded to the risks of flat faced breeds. I don't know who wants to kick off with that first. Maybe Ben was going to comment on that. Yes thank you I'm happy to. So I think it's as I say the code of practice could serve as a useful tool to outline some advice on pet care costs firstly and I think also it ought to include advice on whether purchasing a puppy is right for an individual and on how to source a puppy including what questions to ask the breeder as well. I think there's actually a role for talking up as you'd expect me to say representing Battersea here today but the role of the rescue sector here to help ease some of the pressures on the system and the umbrella group for the sector the Association of Dogs and Cats Home recently had annual returns in showing that reporting rescues are already at 90% capacity and so I think when we're looking at people looking to get a dog you know that opportunity again to talk up the role of rescue the fact that you're potentially taking a dog that's you know had a lot of medical behavioural checks already it'd be a welcome opportunity to flag that. I think there's currently no clause under section 3 proposals which highlight the legal requirement for a puppy of eight weeks or more to be microchipped and registered on a compliant database and we obviously I think would all be well aware of the huge benefits of the microchipping system and for the first time in seven years this year a survey that Battersea has conducted with local authorities across the UK has indicated a rise in the stray dog population so that is something that we would want to continue to push the importance of microchipping. Again under section 3 we can talk about a clause which outlines that puppy should be fully vaccinated before sale and there's also some some contents under section 3 that states before acquiring the dog the prospective acquirer is unless this is not practicable to see the dog with the bit which gave birth to it and I think perhaps there could that say instead unless this is not practicable for welfare reasons because there's a potential loophole that we'd be a bit worried about there where you know somebody is purchasing a puppy without seeing it with its mother but you know if you made that that slight change you would also respect the possible welfare reasons that the mother might not be able to be present there and finally just to echo that point I was making before around the presentation challenge of a code of practice you know how do you make this feel engaging feel relevant feel attractive to users and not something that's that's there to punish them as well. I would agree with Ben's suggestions there. I think one of the challenges with the detail that's given on the face of the bill is that it is relatively limited compared to what would need to be considered before acquiring a dog. We certainly agree that there could be a potential issue there with the wording around seeing a puppy with its mum but under the licensing of activities involving animals regulations for dog breeding there are two very specific clauses of when that could be acceptable for example if the mum has deceased so I would suggest that it would make sense to to replicate that wording and then for us because there is this suggestion of two separate codes of practice at the moment I think we'd be really keen if you know as Julie said it makes perfect sense to streamline that into one code of practice if possible but if you were looking at two different codes both codes would need to clearly reference each other and be named in a way which made it very clear that the second code was referring to the sale and acquisition of dogs whereas the other code refers to the dog's lifetime. Just listening to some of the discussion there my focus during all of this I keep thinking about pure breed dogs and I think that's where the conversation seems to be tied in and I'm not quite seeing how this would fit into just mixed breed dogs people whose dog has been caught out or you know somebody in a local communities dog has had puppies so for example if they were to be had to be vaccinated before the person took the puppy within this code of practice perhaps there's an affordability issue there as well whereas the person taking the puppy would be you know willing to do that I can see where this fits in with pure breed dogs but can I just ask where does this fit in with that scenario that I've just mentioned I'd like to come in Holly possibly with the kennel cub yeah absolutely so she mean pedigree pedigree dogs but are you referring to if someone has an accidental litter for example like a one-off accidental litter yes or yeah yeah because I think the code is applicable to all dogs pedigree cross breed the code is the code is there I agree with with Ben and with Claire would be great to actually make this second more positive piece rather than calling code practice something that you can engage with dog owners because so many of them don't know how to spot an irresponsible breed so actually it could be it's really positive it does apply for my understanding applies to all dogs pedigree cross breed but yes if you have an accidental litter I suppose that that was your point that how can you then ensure that you've completely done the right thing but then again it's to my mind this is more of an educational piece it's something that would be considered in a court of law if there was if there was a case of abuse or cruelty or something like that as part of a wider investigation that's my understanding of it it's not something that if you didn't do every single aspect of this code you would be committing an offence so I believe from my understanding it's following this as closely as you can this is the the gold standard of good practice and it's putting I think more just generally putting more emphasis on buyers to know what to look for so if they were looking for a range of things and as you said okay the vaccinations weren't there because it was an accidental litter but I'm asking other questions and everything else was done then on balance you think okay there was a one-off accidental litter I'll go ahead but if everything else also doesn't marry up and you're getting lots of red flags then it paints more of a picture that's that was my understanding but I believe it applies to all to all dogs I agree I think it would have to apply to all dogs I don't think you could go down that route people are breeding or doing mixed breeds all the time now and it'd be very hard to actually track and to make this have an impact it would have to be down for all dogs something else that the Scottish SPCA has been looking at we've been working with other SPCA's in Australia, New Zealand, British Columbia and England and Wales around the use of five domains model of animal welfare by meller so that's going beyond the sort of five freedoms and it's trying to encourage that you need to provide animals with positive experiences they will get negative but it's that kind of balance between the two and that's again a situation that our inspectors face time and time where people are meeting the bear standards according to existing legislation under the five freedoms but you need them to go above that you need to have those positive experiences and that again influences the behaviour and everything as well so I think again this is an opportunity to utilise this to enhance advice and guidance that's actually going to have a bigger impact on the dog population we've spoken a lot about dogs with behavioural issues because they've not had the right socialisation they've come from areas so I think with this this code has to cover all breeds of dogs cross breeds included and it needs to go beyond the five freedoms and look at things like the five domains before going into the next question can I maybe ask a question so it would appear that the really important thing is buyers and sellers understanding what's good for animal welfare and we've got four or five animal welfare charities around the table whose main job is well not main job but one of their main jobs is public awareness telling people how they should buy a puppy how they should look after a puppy should we not just put a bit of pressure on the government to update their code and then provide funding for you guys to do the public awareness bit because that's ultimately what you're good at and is a lot more chance for for the the puppy purchase around the street there to listen to the dogs trust or or a bad or say or sspca than they are to the to the government should we not just be looking for the government to do the right thing update the code without being forced to through legislation and provide funding to ensure the public awareness campaigns are effective any comment Libby I think the value of the exercise here is that it does put the pressure on the Scottish government and it it does allow for this discussion about what should be not quite an obligation on people acquiring dogs because it doesn't have a legal status it doesn't contain an offence but it does have evidentiary status so if there is a proceeding for an offence compliance or non-compliance with the code will be taken into account but it does give us the opportunity to look at what really should be very nearly obligations on people buying acquiring dogs and in response to Karen Adams question I think this is where the certificate is the very crucial part of it and that's something that is not contained in the current model of the code at present but I'm just forgotten what I was going to say now about the content of the code it gives us the the opportunity to put in so much more detail and the point I was going to make is that charities like dogstrust Scottish s pca battersy have been banding together for years in very effective buy a puppy safely campaign say no to puppy dealers this problem is so intractable because as we heard at the beginning the people engaging in the criminal activity are so determined to do it and so cynical and you might say so heartless they will go on and they will find a way around this so the attempt to change the emphasis is what the bill is all about but I do completely take your point about whether it should be one amalgamated code and I think I would agree with that ultimately okay we're going to move on quite nicely to the certificates request from Kate Forbes thanks very much and good morning a few questions on certificates obviously for well to start off with hearing the evidence thus far there's been a lot of emphasis on the breeders and the fault lying there whereas a certificate of course is presumably designed to try and trigger a commitment from the buyer to care for the puppy and I've got quite a few questions on this but do you think that balance is right then in terms of the proposal here where do you think the balance of responsibility should lie on the buyer or on the breeder and secondly obviously there are some informal certificates already that buyers can commit to but not enshrined in legislation and so my second question is what learnings have you seen from previous certificates informal certificates that have worked what are the right questions to be triggering that commitment amongst the buyer and I don't know who wants to go first I think we're a better place to speak to the first part of that question I think others in the room would be better on the work-loved experience of previous certificates we've made a few comments on the as you say the balance between the supplier and the purchaser of the dog the certificates to be signed by both parties and with both parties details to be included on them however the content of the certificate does seem to be slightly lopsided in that the purchaser has to for example confirm that they've checked with the supplier and believe the dog is at least eight weeks of age that's section 4 b1 there's a few aspects that they're linking back as well to section 3 so for example section 3 subsection 4a that the the purchase has become familiar with the circumstances and then 4b take all reasonable steps to establish and that's in relation to licensing a regulation a registration and the point that we see is that there's a role there for the supplier to come in and for example placing the obligation on the purchaser to to confirm that they believe the dog is at least eight weeks of age that feels like one that'd be appropriate further to be for the supplier to confirm that that the dog is eight weeks of age or that at least there's an ability for both parties to continue that we appreciate that there is obviously a wider educational piece here and it's about collaboration between the supplier and the purchaser but there are aspects that we think that balance could be added to rather than necessarily having to be to be redrawn. Oh, big apparently Holly indicated she'd like to come I see a hand up. Thank you, I see your point that when you look at this bill in isolation it looks like the balance is off because there's much more emphasis placed here on the buyer than there is on the breeder but in context there is a lot that the current regulatory environment is the emphasis is all on the breeder and it's not working as well as it should and that's because as I said before the demand is still there so I see this as a way of members of the public becoming more engaged hopefully better educated and them demanding better of breeders so that it kind of complements the legislation that's already out there so even though it seems like the balance is off at the moment there's there's nothing that buyers have to do and as a result they're just they don't know how to source a puppy responsibly and breeders are exploiting this so that's why I think it within the context of all the regulations that are out there on this issue it is quite a good balance because for the first time it does place that responsibility give some responsibility to people when they're looking to buy a dog as well because ultimately even though the regulations exist for breeders that they're not being enforced properly and the problem isn't really going to be tackled unless buyers start demanding more and demanding better questions was going to be and it might be worth asking it now just in case anybody else wants to come in is the extent to which adding perhaps more requirements onto the buyer including adding more costs into the process might push buyers into trying to circumvent the formal process and therefore make the situation even worse so for example if you know that going to somebody's home and you've got to answer the certificate complete the certificate and you've got to perhaps pay more for the whole process that might make some more inclined to do the back of the car in a car park I don't know perhaps that's unfair and incorrect I think obviously every time you put an onus on the public to do another task or another process you're going to have that risk and there'll always be people who want to get a better deal do things and again it comes back to people following their hearts not their heads and we've got plenty of evidence where people have done that they know standing in a car park with a pup and a boot is the wrong thing to do but I want to go and rescue that pup because otherwise who else is going to do it so there is the obviously this is the we've talked a lot about education I think with the certificate by having that agreement between a buyer and a seller it also gives the buyer that onus a bit of a comeback as well and to challenge the seller on things it's obviously optional there are contracts agreements out there that some buyers and sellers do use there is the risk again when you produce more documents we see it with horse passports and things like that people will create their own versions and their own numbers and again that comes back to that registration of this type of activity and where these certificates logged and so on so I think you will always have that risk when you're asking somebody to do something and go on above and beyond but at the moment it's very much there's a lot on the breeders we need to challenge now the buyers and we need to actually change that pathway so that they take more ownership and responsibility Ben I'm just going to come in quickly on the certificate as a general point I guess you know the as the the code of practice is non statutory there's obviously not really the incentive for people to obtain, keep or carry the certificate and I think furthermore speaking to your point on cost it's not really clear how much this would cost at the moment and or who would issue the certificate so some of that detail needs to be worked out and I think you could argue that for it to be effective it would need to be a legal requirement with a clear enforcement mechanism for no compliance such as the use of fixed penalty notices and so I think there are all of those considerations to make as we look at this piece of legislation as it stands at the moment. Gillie I'd like to come back in. Add in just one bit at the moment you can it says that the certificate may need to be shown to a police officer inspector in response to a reasonable request but there's no real consequence for failing to do so so just bringing back in sort of Ben's point so again that needs to be considered so obviously as this progresses. Yeah currently the certificates only you know the people who are likely to have a certificate are those who are aware already and want to do the right thing so it doesn't address where the issue is so if you want to sell puppies out the back of a car the certificate makes no difference it's going to be something you know it's a valueless piece of paper and you know I don't know how that can an extra hoop for people to jump through is going to incentivise those who are not minded to follow the code to do that extra miles you touched on chipping now it's a legal obligation have we any idea just how many people do chip their dogs how many don't is that policed in any way the sspca do random chip checks and you know because we're looking at something that's actually in place legislation just now which is very physical you know you can tell whether a dog has got a chip or not but all the stuff we're looking at at the moment is all very in practice how can you check that someone has seen the bitch how many checks can you do to make sure they're conscious of the cost of keeping the dog that's all very intangible whereas chipping is tangible do we have any idea whether people are abiding with that given that there's not a national database of such a point about the national database and microchipping's obviously like other legible scan every dog that comes into our care it's quite difficult at the moment with microchipping because different manufacturers have different databases that you have to check so when a dog comes in you have to check multiple databases to figure out if the dog's details are up to date we find that details are not up to date either so again you can't prove ownership having one centralized system would be something that I think we've all been calling for for a very long time because that makes it very challenging there will be dogs out there that are not microchipped and certainly we will get dogs in that have not been microchipped and all the see we will then microchip them ourselves the biggest challenge is because you have so many manufacturers now you don't have a national database making it very hard for that traceability we also have again bring back to scrupulous dealers that they will purchase mass bundles of microchips and again trying to prove the domains of where that animal has come from so they will falsify that as well so that is something again we've seen through a lot of our cases okay um caron thank you convener section one of the legislation specifies that Scottish ministers must make a code of practice in relation to buying selling or transferring dogs as pets and I was just wondering would there be um where's the space in this for working dogs should there be a space for working dogs to open that up too clear and I think we would like any code of practice to apply to all dogs so the existing code of practice for the welfare of dogs does apply to any domesticated dog that is under the control of a person so I think that is what we would anticipate for any new codes of practice as well I don't think we would want to see any kind of differentiation between different kinds of dogs in in terms of the way they're kept being a factor in that yep holly do you want to come in yeah in terms of of kind of the kennel crab remake we have that sections of our community that will work work dogs um and I did see like in one of the submissions there was a proposal for an exemption from this for working dogs um from our perspective obviously if you're in the community of working your dogs the very high chances are you will know what questions to ask and you will be I suppose more aware um of what you're looking for than general members of the public who are purchasing a puppy for the first time um so perhaps the code is less relevant because it's not needed as much by by that community however it wouldn't at the same time it wouldn't really impact them because they would be doing these things and asking these questions anyway it would essentially be that they would be signing an additional piece of paper um so personally we didn't flag this as an issue okay thank you bin I think you know the the existing animal welfare legislation is obviously designed to protect all animals so if this law is to be passed I'm not sure why for example working dogs would earn less protections at the point of breeding um even if if they're being bred for a defined purpose um so and I think also you know if you've got welfare requirements which specific working dogs have related to their purpose that don't apply to the general dog population the police for example are free to pursue their own standards in addition to that baseline um but as I say I think if this law is to be passed you know we wouldn't see that working dogs would earn for example less protections at the point of breeding than than any other I think it all ties back as well to Julie's previous point about um the kind of user experience and the benefits of streamlining everything into one code so given the existing code of practice applies to all dogs um I think there's a huge argument there for for all dogs being included in any additional code or if um if you know there was a way forward with one code as well okay thank you it does specify as pets so it's just to get clarity on that and um your statements on that you're saying that that as pets should be changed to all dogs okay okay thank you we're now going to move on to to look at part 2 the register of unlicensed letters Alice Rallon um thank you very much on this point about um unlicensed letters and kind of building on the point that Karen made earlier about perhaps one-off letters I just wonder is there a need for a sort of de minimis provision about this is there a need for a provision that recognises any difference with with low volume breeders or on the contrary do you feel there's currently a need for more regulation around low volume breeders clear um so going back to what I mentioned at the the start of the session in terms of the lack of traceability currently um for all dogs being being bred and sold I think the suggestion of um registration for anybody who is is um breeding or selling dogs under the current licensing threshold that would be um away for anybody for example who who just had one litter to be captured within the system and provide that traceability across the system without being overly onerous um on them as well I think one of the challenges at the moment is it is very easy to evade um the licensing requirements and that just fuels um fuels the again the lack of transparency and traceability across the system so that's why I think a few things on on the suggestion for registration though I think we would really like it um to apply to to breeders so at the moment the wording is focused on litters I think we want breeders to be captured um and the other thing is really really importantly is the current proposal doesn't require um a register to be introduced um it's on it's up to the Scottish government to do so I think we would really like to see a requirement included on the face of the bill as well I think I know what register on licensed letters means but to many people reading that there will be an inherent contradiction in the idea of registering people who have not licensed themselves how do you do that I think I know what it means but can you can you understand why to to many people that would seem a strange idea so as in how would they be captured if they fall under the litter limit so I think that there is the suggestion that it would be um a lower level of information that would be captured so obviously you'd need their their name and postcode in different details but the difference with licensing is that there would be active inspections on animal welfare standards and this would be a level below that. I think if you look also at the local authority responses to to the committee's consultation on this the two councils that did submit applications were very keen on the suggestion of registration and the reason for that is because it brings every breeder into into their site they've got the ability to do so much more in terms of enforcement if there was traceability across the system as well. Okay, um Holly. Um yeah I mean from our perspective we do um have a policy that we do um support the principle of of um of the compulsory registration and everybody having that number there before you set a puppy because it gives some degree of certainty to the buyer and it helps in that education piece you know if you've got if you've got that number beside your advert then you've gone through some kind of checks and balances process however the issue that we have is that we think at the moment it's it's potentially too soon to bring this in um we know that there's a lot of issues with enforcement currently for higher volume breeders that I alluded to before at the moment for example there's only 175 license breeders in Scotland obviously there's a lot more but they're slipping under the radar so it's our view that whilst there's a lot more that can be done and they will be good things to do it's timing is everything because the demand for puppies is there and we don't want to cut off a good supply as well so at the moment until we've got until we've got the the kind of enforcement right at that higher volume level bringing in more for the home breeders and the lower volume when we know that can potentially turn some people off of breeding it's about it's about timing it's about striking the balance we we want the lower volume breeders the home breeders to continue to breed we would like more of them to breed because we know that people breeding fewer dogs in a loving environment are much more likely or much more likely to get a healthy happy pet at the end of it so for us it's always about striking that balance and incentivising the lower volume breeders to maybe breed if they're confident and they're following advice to breed a litter because they they would probably do a good job of it just just to give some context within the breeders that that we register over a huge proportion will only ever register one or two litters in their in their lifetime never mind per year so we're looking at a very cottage industry it's quite a niche area so those are our concerns really is the enforcement in the timing and and getting the balance right I think so one of the things that there's a requirement obviously for the choir to check that the person they get in the dog from is either a licensed breeder or has registered the litter but as far as we're aware there are no intentions for the registered unlicensed breeders to be made public so anyone conceivably could make up a series of letters numbers and pass off that indeed they're registered um there needs to be some sort of publicly searchable database to allow that resource as Holly's mentioned that is that is a big stumbling block because you can bring all these things in and I've said it before in this room you know you can have the best piece of legislation and codes of practice or whatever it is but if you don't have the resource to do those checks to enforce then then it doesn't work and that's something we've seen time to and there's a lot going being allocated to local authorities um this is yet will be another thing that they will be required to do um money is not ring fenced to do this um who's going to manage the databases and so on so to make this be effective and to work that needs to be considered um and the resource needs to be put in place clear on that Ben um just to add to what jillies just mentioned I think it is really important that um the database of everybody registered is publicly available but I think an additional requirement that will be really really important to the effectiveness and that provision of traceability will be a requirement for any advert for a dog being sold to have either the registration number or the license number included on the advert as well yeah and just to echo that again you know there should be some form of the register accessible to the public again with just some basic information about the breeder including their name registration number and their area of operation perhaps as well and just to put on record as well that we've long advocated for a registration system for breeders below the licensing threshold to deter unethical breeders to improve canine welfare to increase traceability and aid enforcement and we've been pushing for this along for a long time in england and wales too and I think there's you know it's been slow progress being honest so I think there's an opportunity here for Scotland to lead the way on this um and ultimately is a welcome step towards ensuring that there's at least some form of traceability um and documentation for each puppy and I think in the context of recent concerns about public safety around dogs that is is ever more uh important to you thank you um rhoda thanks um can I ask if you agree with the proposed scheme and whether the powers in the bill are required given that there are powers in the animal health and welfare Scotland act um that allow the requirement for a registration scheme as well clear and yes so the the Scottish government currently can introduce registration under the animal health and welfare Scotland act but I think the challenges that they haven't um so I think if this bill could be amended to require that register to be introduced I think that would be a very important step forward Ben I'll just echo that simply okay um without traceability none of the things we're talking about are actually going to be effective could argument be that simply what we need is a mandatory registration scheme for puppies um and they're microchipped so there's full traceability with all the information required behind so name of breeder where the dogs were bred where they've been housed would that not just circumnavigate all this bill which doesn't place any requirements in government at all but so back to the good old days if you like where we had dog licenses but that dog license scheme could be on a nationwide database to allow you better checks better scrutiny of breeders whether there were puppy farmers if you like breeding multiple times or the small scale unregistered letters at the moment would that not be a solution rather than all these little bits in another bill any comments clear so I think one of the differences here is that dog licensing would apply to the owners of dogs whereas what we'd really like to see through this proposal for a register is registration of breeders of dogs and I think that's what is really really important for that traceability across the system of dog breeding and selling we did also mention as part of our submission to the committee that another way that could also be considered could be to amend the microchipping legislation to require anybody who is registering a puppy for the first time a mandatory field to input who the breeder was I think that would be an important step forward in traceability as well but I think importantly what we need to capture here is some form of traceability of breeders which is the really important part Ben yeah I think you know perhaps the vehicle by which this happens we wouldn't take a stronger view on it's just important that it does happen you know the registration of breeders it's something we've pushed for for so long and you know to get back to your point on on microchipping as well just from before it's so important for us and I think since compulsory dog microchipping was introduced in 2016 I think our latest stats are that something like 20% of dogs that arrive at Bathsy are unchipped compared to 60% of cats and obviously the government in Westminster has promised to bring in compulsory cat microchipping from next year but it speaks to the importance of of microchipping and that being signed posted to you as Claire says wherever possible as well. Libby. I think your point about traceability relating to microchipping is absolutely correct but that really affects the individual dog and the point of the registration and as Claire says we would support it being a register of breeders rather than litters and that ensures not only the traceability but also the transparency and the accountability of the breeder and if anybody is attempting to register separate litters and actually is breeding above the threshold so they should come under the licensing regime that would be fairly obvious fairly quickly and so we would certainly support making it mandatory that the register should be created and also that numbers should be shown on advertisements. Holly. I just to somewhat echo the comments of others I think a dog licensing scheme is quite different and history has kind of proved that it doesn't work terribly well and that there's lots of non-compliance and it's incredibly expensive so this would probably be preferable but yes in theory the microchipping regulations should allow for that traceability because the breeder should be registered as the first keeper of the dog unfortunately in many instances the breeder will register the new owner either because of a lack of awareness that they should be registered as the first owner or perhaps because they want to circumvent it but I think the point is when people want to get around something they will find a way of getting around it particularly when there's no more resources given to local authorities and enforcement is almost impossible you are relying on people doing the right thing which is why in our view that the code in the certificate is the natural first step and should be embedded in because the hope is that with that better education and with that greater responsibility taken by the prospective purchaser these things will naturally get done and we will still have a good supply of home breeders and very low volume breeders breeding dogs I'm always quite interested to see how a bill or proposed new legislation can actually help and support a change of a culture because I mean we're looking at this I think something we've not mentioned is we're talking about people who are breeding pups for the purpose of making money and using these dogs as commodities really and changing that culture in terms of how people view breeding their dogs and buying their dogs I mean how how can we embed that into this do you think I think you touched upon it a bit there Holly it can change that attitude in how we are buying and selling animals for example I have a family member who has Romanian rescue dogs and that organisation is very strict they do home visits and if the dog is not suitable for that family even if it's up to two three years if they no longer want to that animal that organisation steps in to help re-home it so they take that responsibility on of that animal and there's a whole culture that they have around those stray dogs so I'm just wondering you know sorry it's a bit long-winded but where does that fit into this bill do you think this could change the culture of how we view purchasing and owning a dog anybody want to come in clear so I think throughout the proposals there are suggestions for a public awareness campaign to be run as well from dogs trust perspective it is really important to think about behaviour change as part of that so any campaign not purely raising awareness but actually looking to change behaviour in acquiring a dog and its you know factors included in that would really be understanding the drivers and the motivations to be able to have a much more focused campaign that could be much more effective in changing behaviour and then in terms of breeders like we said the registration scheme would be a hugely useful first step to kind of bring bring them into the system but enforcement is going to be so crucial there as well and unfortunately we know local authorities in Scotland are incredibly stretched at enforcing any of the existing legislation especially the existing activities that are licensed under the licensing of activities involving animals regulations we actually collectively as charities did do some freedom of information requests earlier this year we found out that 16 percent of Scottish councils have not been inspecting animal welfare establishments which is a requirement and that did include the largest council in Scotland so they're hugely under resourced we think a clear solution to that would be to have a centralised units of appropriately trained inspectors that could be used across local authorities in Scotland we know Wales have have done a project looking at this and it has proven to be fairly successful so far we think that model would be a hugely important step forward as well in enforcing the legislation and by actually holding breeders who are on screen for this and not breeding into the standards that we would expect holding them to account and actually enforcing the legislation as well. I'm bringing Holly and then Jamie's got a question which follows on from this. Just to say that this could be part of a cultural change I don't think it's going to be the silver bullet that's going to solve the problem and change everybody's ways but it's the first the first time that there has been a suggestion of a change in human behaviour when they actually go to acquire a dog and it would require some degree of huge behaviour change which we were looking to get and our survey showed nearly 60 percent of people said social media had the biggest influence on what puppy they got and that you know so that this requires huge change and this bill could potentially not completely solve the problem but go some way in helping in helping with that. So yes that was that was the point I want to say also it's a side issue we do agree with Claire that regarding enforcement it is so weak at the moment through no fault of the local authorities due to their resources that actually having a centralized unit in place could actually be really helpful and again we would suggest that is in place before we bring in further regulatory requirements such as the compulsory registration system. I think it's maybe appropriate I'm going to bring in Jamie Halcro Johnston's question and it might just help inform what we're at the point we're discussing at the moment. Thanks very much convener. Good morning to everyone. It was really along those lines around enforcement and compliance so it fits kind of nicely in. I mean every member of this committee here represents a rural or highland and islands community, very difficult to deliver services even at the best of times, huge pressure on it. This is likely to put additional responsibilities on those as well as all councils. The suggestion that perhaps there could be a central central body doing that was interesting so I perhaps we could get some ideas of costs and and how that would be how that would be delivered because obviously that's a whole new potentially approach but you know if this regular if these regulations given that previous regulations don't seem to be enforced and you know this will only be successful if there is the teeth and the enforcement. Would you say that without a new approach either additional resources for councils or a more centralized approach what confidence do you have that this new code of conduct will be any better than we've got at the moment? Can I bring in Shelly first and I'll go to Clarene Bain. Yes, so this is one of our main concerns is you're asking an existing resource to do even more and they can't do what they currently are committed to at the moment. We think having a centralized body like we work very closely with Trading Standard Scotland as an example with HMRC when it comes to disruption of the puppy trade and it's a very much and it works really really effectively because you have one body supporting those actions so we believe that would be of benefit to ensure that this could actually be enacted properly. Just on our previous point I was going to mention about you can do a lot on owners on breeders and so on if the demands there those who want to get around the system will get around the system so that we talked about human behavior change the buyer needs to change their behaviors and they need to change and obviously this is another part of the education piece but certainly I think having a centralized body as Clarene mentioned in Wales they have been trialling something of similar you need to make sure that within that group you've got a group of people who are experienced and trained and know what to look for particularly when dealing with individuals who are doing everything they possibly can to get around these systems. We've spoken a lot about in previous discussions about canine fertility clinics you need someone who knows what fertility clinic is knows how to spot things that aren't quite right and so having a dedicated team who have the expertise and knowledge and the right training to conduct that would be definitely a preference for us. You touched on people getting round the rules there's one section in part two over the regulations that there's an exemption of the first owner of litter of puppies who is not at the time resident in Scotland well that just rings alarm bells immediately I could nip over the border to Carlyle say I stayed there for a week and then believe I'm exempt because that's the time I was going to register them. That definitely links back for a long time we've been calling for a national animal offenders register because people do border hop we spend a lot of time working with the RSPCA on the same individuals who do that we obviously have a lot of dealings with Ireland and Northern Ireland in particular we do stop that kenryan port as an example so this for this to be effective it's very hard at the moment we've had court cases of someone has been prosecuted down in England and it's turned up in discussions oh actually they had an offence in Scotland and then obviously you've kind of brought that to light so people will border hop and we know that. Let me bring in Claire and Ben and Libby on this but Robbie what's your perspective from a legal side of the exemptions? I think our general comments on part two was the fact that the detail isn't clear because it's to be decided by a second legislation so that was our overarching comment. In respect of the exemption it's section 8 to A2 we've not looked at that in any particular detail it's something that we'd be happy to write to the committee if it's of particular interest but I wouldn't be less pleased to comment that just now. I'll touch on both points being discussed so first of all to touch on the exemption for people who aren't residents in Scotland I think the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission's response actually captured that quite well in terms of amending the current proposal so that where a person in Scotland acquires a dog aged less than 12 months from outside Scotland they should be required to then enter its detail on the register within a certain time frame I think it is a concern for us at the moment that that could certainly create a loophole and a way for people to evade the system. But then going back to Jamie's question around the enforcement side of things and what costs could be involved. If we were to look at the Wales model the Welsh Government funded a pilot which focused on training inspectors in Wales and I think for us that's as Julie said it's just so important that anybody inspecting breeders or other animal establishments it's so incredibly important that they are trained in that trained in animal welfare and know what they are looking for but actually being able to train a central unit of inspectors is likely to be much more cost effective and efficient as a model we know it's worked in Wales so operating together across local authorities while providing a service across local authorities in Wales it has improved inspections to increase compliance amongst breeders and increase prosecutions for non-compliance and I think as well going back to the the rural comment Aberdeenshire council has submitted evidence to the committee suggesting that the current suggestion in the financial memorandum is is not going to be sufficient local authorities again through no fault of their own art under resourced and this is going to be a real challenge for them to enforce unless something like a centralised unit of inspectors is considered as an alternative and enough resources put into that. I'm going to get Ben to comment then and bring Jamie back in a supplementary. I think enforcement for us throughout the bill is a bit of a concern so I think we've undertaken research last year around the enforcement of animals activities licensing across the UK and it revealed perhaps totally unsurprisingly a very inconsistent picture a bit of a postcode lottery of what was going on in different local authorities in relation to animal welfare pronounced differences in structure training the number of license inspectors license fees etc and although the costs are estimated in the financial memorandum in relation to this bill I think it needs further research and certainly you know if this bill were to be introduced really close monitoring to understand the picture. I think there is something around enforcement more broadly that Scottish Government could consider the use and availability of fixed penalty notices for as an alternative enforcement mechanism for technical breaches of legislation where welfare is not compromised so such as a failure to obtain a registration to sell puppies but yeah just to reiterate I think the enforcement point is a key one and the costs may need further examination. Thanks very much I mean I'd be interested to know you know across the board maybe not now but the level of enforcement that's currently existing but one thing I didn't hear was I mean the Welsh pilot government funded do we know how much that cost has there been estimates if that was rolled out in a Scottish context given we're a larger population a more dispersed population larger rural areas how much that might cost obviously Aberdeenshire as you said 24 000 I think it was but that could be far higher in areas like the highlands and islands and the like so it'd be interesting to know how much the Welsh one cost and how what the estimates are for any Scottish pilot. Libby and then I'm going to bring in Ariane with that supplement. Thank you very briefly enforcement across all animal welfare legislation is an issue which is increasingly coming to the fore and is being looked at by the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission at present although be premature to predict what it will be saying but there is a problem so certainly resources are going to be needed for this and other legislation just in terms of that specific small point about section 82811 and Claire's helpfully said the commission has made a suggestion for an amendment so that by registering the puppy within 14 days of its arrival you are effectively the first owner because clearly the Scottish Parliament cannot legislate for outwith Scotland but as soon as the puppy and thus the first owner are resident in Scotland that would apply. Kate Forbes. It's very much this goes back to a point that Jilly made which is around enforcement and as always with any legislation it might have laudable aims but if it can't be enforced then unfortunately we don't see that behavioural change which you are all keen to see so first question goes back to my earlier comment around certification to what extent actually will more formalised documentation help with enforcement because there's more of a record and secondly is it purely a question of finance in terms of enabling boots on the ground to go and check or are there other ways by which you can intercept poor behaviour that doesn't meet the standards. I think we'll start with Jilly. So I think from the more documents like certification and so on we can utilise that and put it as part of a case using obviously the Animal Health and Welfare Scotland act showing that transaction showing the exchange of knowledge and so on so it'll just be good to have an added tool we get told a lot I didn't know this don't know where it came from you try and find the name of the person that they bought the person from that name doesn't exist so I think just having that will give us another tool to use when it comes to the resource in order that you do need boots on the ground there are lots of different disruption avenues you can go down obviously looking when we probably to help when we go and investigate something it's not just taking witness statements you are looking at online activity you are seizing phones you are looking communication between maybe breeders and buyers we've seen a lot of that through fertility clinics you're maybe getting vets involved and so on so there's quite a lot of different professions involved and there's also a reliance on the physical information gathering as well as obviously the online search tools that you need the inspection part and having people going out physically on the ground to inspect and to check that things have been complied with that's what we're missing at the moment you don't have that resource to tap into and it is a money thing the local authorities do not have the resource to employ more people to go and do that anybody else like to come on in that point ben it's a fairly obvious point i'm afraid but funding and a lack of resource more widely are obviously a perennial problem for local authorities and I think it may ultimately come down to that that here as well that we need that the local authorities need more money to be able to enforce both existing animal welfare legislation and this has passed the root of my question was that you can only enforce or you can only go in on situations that you are aware of so again going back to my earlier question it's much harder i imagine to follow up the anonymous guy with a puppy in the boot than it is when actually somebody is already coming into contact with some sort of organization and body and presumably again this is where the public are really critical in terms of what to look for and jillie you talked you made a point earlier which i thought was fascinating where again with certificates you almost have the you improve the rights of the buyer because they have documentation and proof perhaps even if that flags up inaccurate details and so on as you say it's the buying population as well people who have gone down the trap and bought a puppy and survived they are embarrassed to report it and that is that that is a behavioural change that we need to get people sort of overcome in a lot of the campaigns that we've all done it's very much you know walk away report many people don't walk away they still take because the heart's ruling the head at that moment and so i think it is it's you're trying to tackle us from all different angles the enforcement side you need buyers to change their behaviour you needed the education piece to make this actually work you can't just do parts of it otherwise it's not going to be successful you have to do the whole packet absolute record if somebody is tempted to rescue a little puppy in the back of a boot what should they do walk away and just report please so we've heard about all that this could do but there's no legislation backing up most of it what i'm concerned about is you will always get people who want to try and do the right thing and they don't need the legislation to do that but what my concern is with what's in front of us that it could potentially create artificial legitimacy so you could have people who have no intention of sticking to the guidelines having more documents a nice piece of paper to say that they're a verified breeder and whatever a bit like going to a fake university and getting a diploma which we know is happening in the past so given buyers wrongly place confidence that who they're buying it from is legitimate without any of the safeguards so potentially it could it could create an even more worrying situation where it looks like poor breeders have got some sort of legitimacy because there's no enforcement and no checking and no proper regulations it seems to me that that this could potentially make things worse and what we should be looking at is a straightforward national registration scheme which if you have a puppy you have a tag when you scan that tag the enforcement agencies where there's local authorities or SSPCA can then see who the breeders are and if there's any issues then follow that up that's that's my view it seems to be potentially could make things work because there's no a no policing of these requirements. Jamie Halcro Johnston it's a very very quick kind of point for information on the back of what Kate Forbes was saying that I mean if somebody is somebody's aware that somebody another person is selling a puppy and they have concerns as illegally you said they should walk away and report it who do they report it to is their central number Scottish SPC animal helpline it's open every day of the year but is that the only number they should go to should they not go to the police as well and trading standards trading standards scotland yes there's not all avenues and what chances is there I mean even if they want to what chances is there of that that being acted on fairly quickly very quickly so for instance if somebody reports about pup in a car park that might be actually the missing piece to do with somebody that we're already following and it gives us we will do test purchases as an example so if we're getting intelligence to say that somebody keeps going to a supermarket car park every Wednesday or what have you we will go and do a test purchase in that car park and we have caught people doing just doing that to approach so sometimes we need just that extra bit of information to add to the picture that we're already building to then go and actually do an enforcement action so that's why we always say it the more information that we can get the better because there's a couple of key groups that are continuously in scotland doing this type of activity we sometimes need a bit more information to be able to do than action at the different areas working with a police scotland at the port of ken ryan for example they'll go as far as taking one car one way and then renting a car when they get on this side of the water you know there's different things so it's a matter of that multi agency approach but the more information you can get the more that you can do so that's why we need people to report and do you think that the awareness of that of what you can do and that they could come to you or they could come to the police or they could go to tradings it is out there amongst the public we do we would do normally the same campaign leading up to christmas usually every time we have operation delphin which we've spoken about a lot that is a multi agency approach with trading standards hmrc police scotland and others we will be doing more action on that so we will continuously publicise you have lots of people say oh yeah no i know about that but they're not the people who are buying the pops in the car park so it's that behaviour change how do we get across to that audience who are continuing to fuel the demand because unless you stop the demand the trade and everything will still continue any other questions from members or any other panellists like to make a comment ben then liby quickly in the context of this bill i think that comes back to the public awareness side of it being so important it would need to be sustained use multiple channels of communication and it would also the code of practice for example would need to be included on relevant websites where dogs are being bought and sold so pets for homes gumtree et cetera so you just have to ensure that there really was the the public awareness drive that would would marry up with the legislation too thank you liby and again very quickly while there is a concern about enforcement the register itself will be an aid to enforcement because it provides that resource that intelligence and one would hope it will make it easier for local authority officers or Scottish SPC inspectors to check out somebody's credentials and their activities so there is a distinct positive to having it well thank you very much thank you for your time this morning that's been hugely useful and now that concludes our business in public and we will now move into private session and support is to spend the meeting for a 10 minute comfort break


What's good YouTube, this your boy Chihuahua back with y'all again with another video man If you new to this channel go ahead hit that like button, comment, subscribe, make sure you click post notifications So you will be notified every time you watch out some heat In today's video I will be letting you guys know exactly what I need y'all to do if you want to be a part of the video in the next two days I want everybody to draw a creative picture with the topic of Alien invasion after you draw this picture hashtag Chi world contest and have it have your picture done and finished by the The 24th April 24th, that's when everybody need to be finished they need to make sure they got a picture hashtag and On that day, I will go live and we will look at everybody picture that participated on my channel So make sure you go ahead and get to it right now Love y'all. Thank y'all for the support and remember what I said make sure you finish on the day of April 24th be completed. Have your picture What time Shoot soon as you get up that day They need to be finished. They need to be finished soon as soon as you soon as it's April 24th You need to be complete. You need to have your picture At midnight. Okay. Yeah midnight midnight have your picture uploaded and ready to go Hashtag Chi world contest that what I said Chi world contest hashtag Chi world contest under your picture So they'll make all the pictures go to one place and I know what to find everybody picture Thank y'all for the love of support. Make sure you stay too more heat coming soon. I'm out this thing


And the Delta State APC Governorship Candidate and Deputy President of the Senate, Senator Oviya Omoagige, has promised the good peoples of Atoridu construct a major breach that linked the community to other parts of the state for business activities to come back to life if elected governor of the state. Senator Omoagige made the statement during the APC Word to Word campaign at Udu Local Government area of Delta State. Omoagige said it's a clear indication that the governor, if I a co-led government, have cut off Atoridu from development process as one of the oil producing community in the state and ask the people to send back leadership of a people's democratic party away from the state. The class of Delta in Oval era, they don't spend over 16 billion for that. Breach is the state of decay. A part of collapse I live away from now, but as far as the coal is concerned, it doesn't care. But I'm giving you my assurance. I am one of you. I will not sit back and allow that breach to go down. We will reconstruct it. We will reconstruct it. You have my commitment on that.


The teacher doesn't have the same role. In fact, it's not in front of the classroom giving all the results as always. You just have to prepare the thing, the activity, tell the story and then it will be there to help the students, facilitate things, help them to solve problems or just ask them the correct question to help them to find themselves the answer. And as students, so that just have to understand the goals, of course, it must be very clear from the teacher's side and be creative and try really to collaborate with the others and not just play by themselves but, you know, keep that way of thinking as a team. We can boost the creativity of the students with the game because very often as teachers we want to keep the control on everything in the class but with video games we are there just to launch the experience, tell the story and prepare all the environment but then we must accept to lose the control on what's going on in the classroom. We must accept to be surprised and give the opportunity to our students to surprise us. So that's where video games can be really powerful, video games or games in general can be really powerful. A teacher to introduce game-based learning or gamification as a first step shouldn't focus on efficiency because efficiency is one thing but sometimes I think we are too focused on that and so we don't accept to try experiment. So first step would be for me to ok, what are the skills, the way of how to learn skills which we want to achieve with our students, what are the needs first. We don't have to, you know, to let beside our curriculum skills, our curriculum objectives but first what will be the experiment as students, what will they keep in mind in 10 years and say ok I love that course because we did this and this and this. I don't remember all the knowledge of these things, I really felt unpowered and so that's the first step and then maybe trying to, you know, connect with other teachers as a first point. It's quite difficult to try by yourself but you have teachers maybe in your environment, your country, your district that is trying something and just, you know, discuss with them and as a first try and then, you know, let yourself the right to experiment and fail, maybe it's ok, the next year it will be better.


Ever see the Arnold movie Running Man from the mid-80s? The arcade game Smash TV set out to make a video game aped off of the theme from the movie, which is to pit one or two players in an arena and send waves and waves of enemies at them as part of some kind of twisted game show, complete with a host, an audience, and everything. Clear the room, move on to the next, and collect all sorts of power-ups and money along the way. They even included a sleazy Richard Dawson-like host, you gotta love this guy. Smash TV was a huge hit in the arcades for its unique gameplay using two joysticks, one dedicated to moving and one dedicated to the direction of fire, shooting in eight directions from a top-down viewpoint. It's a continuation of the designer Eugene Jarvis's earlier work from the game Robotron 2084. The Super Nintendo port, Super Smash TV, arrived pretty early in the Super Nintendo lifespan, that's usually bad news for an arcade port, but this game is very good and does a nice job capturing the spirit of the original arcade game both in theme and gameplay. They did an admirable job keeping the twin stick shooter controls in place, they used the D-pad to move, and you essentially used the four right hand buttons as a makeshift D-pad to fire, that's pretty clever, and it works well. Anyway, if anything describes Super Smash TV, it's that it's enjoyable chaos at its best. There's just a ridiculous amount of stuff going on at all times, the amount of enemies on screen at once is just crazy, in fact I'm reminded of games like Lemmings when I see stuff like this, but you can't just mindlessly shoot at everything, you gotta keep one eye out for power-ups and money, which you'll need for extra points to get extra lives and continues, and you will need every single one of those because as you might expect, this game is just a tad on the difficult side, but just like Pocky and Rocky, which I talked about earlier this month, the difficulty is curbed a bit with a second player. However, there are no cool tool player combos or maneuvers in these games, sadly. Anyway, Smash TV also received ports on the Genesis Game Gear and Sega Master System, but what's strange is that those games are also titled Super Smash TV? I thought the Super in the title was a Super Nintendo thing, I don't get it. This game also landed on the NES as well as a bunch of home computer systems, but the consensus is that the Super Nintendo port is the best of the bunch because the SNES controller lends itself so well to the core gameplay. So yeah, Super Smash TV is as advertised exactly what you'd expect, no surprises, just pure chaos and adrenaline. It's almost like, did you think Pocky and Rocky was a little too cutesy for your taste? Well, this is just about as far from that universe as you could get with the same kind of gameplay, so here you go. If you can't get enough Smash TV, there's total carnage, and for all intents and purposes, it is a Smash TV sequel, but instead of going from room to room as part of a game show, it's a military motif where you're dropped off in the Middle East off to rescue hostages. The gameplay is almost exactly the same, though. Really, the only thing I noticed that was different was the ability to lay mines with the shoulder buttons. The weapons are a bit better and show a lot more range, but they kind of have to because there's a lot more real estate to work with in this game. There's also a lot of cheap deaths in this game.  In addition, total carnage was dialed way, way back from the original arcade version. The blood is green for some reason, and maybe it's my imagination, but you just don't move as quickly as you do in Smash TV. Maybe it's the slow scrolling that's playing tricks on me, but it sure seems like you don't move around as fast. I'm nitpicking, though. Total carnage is good for what it is, and its controls, range of weapons, and overall carnage are just as fun as Super Smash TV. But for my money, Super Smash TV takes the cake. I love the game show theme and the obnoxious game show host, and it just seems faster and more intense. I think keeping the action within closed quarters makes a difference, and it makes it harder to dodge and really amps up the intensity. So yeah, Super Smash TV, total carnage, can't go wrong with either, but I'd rather go with Super Smash TV. I'll buy that for a dollar.