We welcome to the 30th meeting of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee in 2023. I received apologies from Karen Adam MSP, and I welcome to the meeting Emma Harper MSP, who will be substituting. Before we begin, I remind those outputs to members using electronic devices to be switched to silent. Our first item of business this morning is to decide whether to take item 9, consideration of evidence that is taken on the welfare of dogs, Scotland bill, Caen, rydyn ni weithio'r bywydai'r cyd-igodau gyda gweld rôl cyfrifiadau neu'r cyfrifiadau genedlai amser o gweld eich myfydlu fynd i'r newid o apanol omaeig ysgolffithau ym scaf. Rwy'n rhoi'r cyfrifiadau'r Gweithio a'r ysgolffithau i'r eich myfydliadau gyda byddai gyda myfydliadau amser o agored, neu ysgolffithaethau a chyfoddau ysgolffithau a'r cyfrifiadau amser i'r cyfrifiadau, ac mae'n cyfrifiadau ysgolffithau gan ysgolffithaethau I thank you for inviting me to speak about the Quality Meet Scotland Amendment Order 2023. The Quality Meet Scotland Order 2008 makes provision about the constitution and function of the organisation and it also specifies the rules around the rates for the red meat levy. The rates included in the order are the maximum rates that can be charged and QMS sets the payable le credentiallevi published Secondly, the orders stipulate that QMS cannot increase the paid leviapped in the axis of the maximum levi rate in the order and the same with the value of the provision of this requirement would be in offence. The maximum rates haven't been amended since the order was first laid in Parliament in 2008. That was only in 2010, when cattle increased when cattle increased from £4.57 to £5.50, sheep from £67.80 and pigs increased from £1.05 to £1.26. Those figures are the combined producer and slaughterer Levy. This change took the sheep rate to the maximum and it only left £9 headroom on pigs. Levy income is, of course, fundamental to the running of QMS who provide several functions to the benefit of the red meat sector. I do not have time to cover all of QMS's activity, but one of the functions that I would like to highlight today is their marketing of Scotch beef, Scotch lamb and specially selected pork, which is so important for Scotland's red meat industry as well as for raising the profile for the export market. It is important to ensure that QMS has the ability with the agreement of industry to raise the payable Levy if they feel that there is a need for that. This draft instrument amends the quality meat Scotland order 2008 for this purpose. Final approval on any rise in the payable levy is required from ministers. I would like to reiterate that the maximum levy rates are being raised due to the current payable sheep rates having reached the ceiling permitted by the order and the pig levy being just £9 away from the limit. The changes provided for by the new SSI will ensure that the order will meet the needs of the sector for a number of years ahead. Raising the maximum rates in the order does not mean that the payable rates will automatically increase. Given my approval for any subsequent proposed increase in payable rates, I will have to be satisfied that QMS has fully engaged with levy pairs, that stakeholder views have been heard and that the impact of the rise has been considered. Levy is fundamental to the running of QMS and I am content that this amendment to the order is necessary. I hope that my comments today are helpful in setting out the rationale for bringing forward this instrument. I am, of course, happy to take any questions that the committee might have. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. I will kick off with a couple of questions. Is my understanding that the levy or the ceilings for the levy have not been looked at since 2010? That is quite some time ago, so why are we only seeing this now? When the sheep levy is at its maximum, why is not this reviewed on a regular basis? Potentially any increase would be smaller than it needs to be now. Just give farmers more certainty. 13 years is a long time to wait, and then it looks like it has been done at the last minute because you have reached the top of the available charge that you can make for sheep in particular. Just to be clear, the ceiling was set in 2008, but the last time the levy was raised, you are absolutely correct, was in 2010. Again, the levy is set on an annual basis, which is something that I have to approve. Again, it is up to QMS to bring that forward, to consult on any changes to the levy as well. I agree that it has been a long time, which is why it is only right that we consider those ceiling rates and why we are bringing forward the proposals that we are today for the committee's approval. Clearly a lot has happened within that time, and we are all seeing and experiencing the impacts of inflation. We have seen some sizeable challenges right across the industry that the faced over the course of the past few years. That is where it is right that we look to increase the ceilings, but we also make sure that we are future proofing that in case QMS wants to raise the levy, should they consult with members, and that is ultimately what levy pairs agree to, and that we have that ability and that flexibility there in the future too. To understand that this is just providing the maximum levy, but was there any reason why it has not been reviewed more frequently? Is it something that you might do in the future so that we are not looking at this legislation only coming forward every 10 years? When you look at the current maximum levy and the proposed, it is a big increase, which has some stakeholders have raised some concerns over that. If it was raised every two years or every five years, that ceiling might not rise quite so much. Is there any reason why it did not review it more often than, as I say, 13 years since it was first discussed? I would just make the point that it is the ceiling rather than the maximum rate. QMS would have to have that consultation with levy pairs to see if they are going to increase the levy. There is not a guarantee in any way with that, but ultimately that is a discussion that QMS needs to have with levy pairs in relation to the rates. Again, that is looked at and considered annually. The only time that the Parliament can look at this is this once every 10, 13 years, because we will have no role whatsoever when it comes to QMS engaging with their stakeholders and you as a minister to decide whether any increase is valid or not. That is the reason why I am asking, because this is the last time that we will get to see the legislation before. Potentially, QMS could put the levy up from £5.25 to £9. I am not expecting it to do that, because I hear what you are saying. However, this is the last time that we get to look at it. That also brings into the question why there was not a bria on this. I know that you responded to a question to say that there is no effect currently by this instrument, but ultimately it will, down the road, have a financial impact. Once again, the Parliament will have no role in that. Why was not there an analysis done of the potential impact of this levy increase so that the committee could consider that? I want to make sure that we are absolutely clear on what we are talking about today, because I think that the last thing that I would want to put the fear into the industry is that levy rates are going to increase to the absolute maximum in the ceiling. That is a technical order. We are raising the ceiling, but the levy rates are not being increased. This is up to QMS and the discussion that it has with its levy pairs about whether or not that levy rate would rise then comes to Scottish ministers for approval as it does annually and as it has set out. In relation to the bria, of course, it would have been very difficult for us to prepare. As you have already set out, convener, I wrote to the committee and outlined why we did not undertake a bria purely because it would have been speculative. There is no proposal right now on the table for an increase in levy rates. We do not know if that will happen, what any proposals will be, so it is not possible for us to give that definitive impact or say that there would be a direct impact on businesses when we do not know if the levy is going to rise or not. I appreciate that, but this is the last time that we can look at it. We are about to approve a potential increase up to our ceiling. I absolutely understand that, but the Parliament and the committee have no role whatsoever in scrutinising when that levy may or will kick in. We will see an increase in the levy for cattle, sheep and pigs, but we will not have any role in that. We will not be able to assess what the financial impact is. That is where I am trying to get at. Do you see any role for the committee in the future when it comes to the ability of QMS and the minister to raise a levy? I think that the roles and responsibilities in relation to that are set out in the legislation, which is why I am before you today in relation to this order and raising the ceilings. I am more than happy to keep the committee updated if QMS decides that, while undertaking engagement across the country just now with different events to discuss this as well as the wider strategy with industry, that is a discussion that they need to have. We will be informed and approached if they are considering raising the levy. I would be happy to keep the committee updated. We have two responses to the Government consultation. It is not exactly a solid basis to proceed with the technical amendment. Do you agree? I think that what is key here is who was consulted and the fact that there was the follow-up discussions with the two people who responded to the consultation as well. I think that it is really critical that we engage with the people who would be most impacted by this too, which are the processors. There was also a response from NFUS. There were then follow-up discussions and meetings with the two organisations to discuss the concerns that they had about the order. Again, this is about their discussions also with QMS, should the levy rates be raised. Again, what we are talking about here is a technical order and raising the ceilings. That was the discussion that we had, but I do not know if Michelle would want to say anything further on that. I think that, just to say as well, while it is two responses that we had, each of those two organisations had very many members. Therefore, many more organisations reached as a result of those two. It is interesting, because I was at an event with farmers when our committee survey had been sent out. Unfortunately, it was just a little bit too late, but we did our due diligence, because we wanted to understand a little bit more. I understand that you handpicked the people that you sought an opinion from. Is that true, because farmers were not aware of it? What is a targeted consultation? How do you handpick those people? In consultation with QMS and our own knowledge, we made sure that we reached levy pairs, NFUS cover farmers and SAMW cover processors. Those were the two respondents. It is up to them to speak to the members. That is not an unusual approach. We take that approach with other consultations that are held in relation to where there are specific interests that we need to consult and hear from as well. That is not an unusual approach. Just to be clear, it was about the ceiling not the increase in levy, because that is a discussion that QMS needs to have with the levy pairs. Do you believe that the consultation process should have followed the detailed engagement from QMS to understand what the levy payers actually believe about this particular raising of the ceiling? It would have been a better route to ask QMS to do detailed engagement prior to the consultation process so that QMS levy payers could have understood that this was coming forward and that we would have a broader understanding of what they felt about it. I think that it is important that we undertake the consultation on the raising of the ceiling, and that, again, is quite rightly a separate process to the consideration of the raising of the levy itself, because there are very distinct processes too. I think that it is important that we set out that process and have undertaken that in the way that we have. Does the possible increase in the levy, the raising of the ceiling, correlate directly to the increase in operational costs to QMS, or is it directly responsible for the marketing of Scotch beef? Again, that is about the ceiling and future proofing for years to come. There was a methodology that was taken by QMS—I do not know if Michelle would be able to say a bit more about that—in considering what the appropriate ceiling rates might be, so considering the consumer price index, retail price index and the agricultural price index, looking at the averages over the course of the past 10 years and how that has changed, and looking at, well, how can that be future proofed for the next 10 years, at least, to give that flexibility? Again, that is all about the ceiling, not what any rate could potentially be. I would also like to highlight that we are not the only Government going through this process or the only agency going through this process. The same discussions are also taking place across the rest of the UK. It is happening in England and it is happening in Wales as well in relation to looking at the ceiling rates for their own levees there. Just looking at the answers that you gave to the convener with regard to looking at the technical raising of the ceiling over the past 13 years, is it coincidence that it is occurring now or is it related to the inflationary cost burden on QMS? As I have highlighted already, there have been a number of challenges over the course of the past few years. We have seen inflation soar, which is why I think that it is important that we are considering this now, especially when we see that the sheep and the costs related to that are at the absolute ceiling. Pigs are only nine pence away from what the maximum could be, so that does not leave any leeway should their QMS, in discussion with their levee pairs, decide that there needs to be a change in order to enable them to carry out their activities ultimately, because the levee is so fundamental to the running of the organisation. Do you have any oversight as the Scottish Government? Obviously, it is a Government-funded organisation. Do you have any oversight as to whether the ceiling will be raised, the levee will be consulted on and the extra revenue will be used for operational activities to take into account inflationary burden or whether they will be directly correlated to marketing activities to promote the Scottish beef, which a lot of farmers are concerned about? First of all, QMS is not a Government-funded organisation, but it has audited accounts that are published annually, where that information can be interrogated by the committee or any member of the public if they want to have a look at that. All right, I'm sorry, I thought that they were Government-funded. No, and again, that's why the levee is so critical in relation to that as well. In terms of the process from here, now, as I say, the levee is considered annually, on an annual basis, so even where there's been no change to that levee, it still has to come to Scottish ministers for approval, and that's the process that will continue on as well. Now, when that comes forward, I would be expecting QMS to consult with the levee pairs before they propose any increase, should they propose any increase, and I would expect to see evidence of that consultation and how they've had that engagement with stakeholders. Now, I understand that that engagement has already started by QMS, that they're doing a road show across the country at the moment, where they're discussing their strategy as well as discussing the levee too, so of course I will continue to have an interest in those discussions as they come forward and before any proposals are put to me. Okay. Just in the back-up reach last about the targeted consultation, could you give us the list of people who are asked to respond to the consultation? Yes, I'd be happy to provide that. I don't know if you want me to list them off just now. We have that information here. Are they happy to follow that up in writing? No, if you could let us know what they are just now, that would be helpful. Okay, I'll pass on to Michelle. She's got the list there. The National Sheep Association of Scotland, Scottish Beef Association, NFUS, SAMW, the Institute of Auctioneers and Appraisers in Scotland, Scottish Association of Young Farmers Clubs, Scottish Crofting Federation, Agricultural Industries Confederation and the Scottish Craft Pictures. Can you tell me who actually responded? Yes, NFUS and SAMW. You're not surprised that there are the lack of responses? Was anything done to follow up on the organisations that didn't respond? As you know, we had a call for views on the back-off this last week. The beef association said that they found the email in a spam folder. Was there any attempt to ensure that everybody had this and had an ability to respond? Was there any follow-up? Two out of nine seems to be quite a low response. The question is, I cannot see how the minister is responsible for the fact that an email went to someone else's spam folder. Thank you, Alasdair. I'll decide whether my question is valid or not. If you've only got two out of nine responses, was there any effort to try and get further responses, given that this was a targeted rather than an open consultation? I suppose that's the direction that my question comes from. As I say, we followed up with NFUS and SAMW. I'm Alasdmashale about any further correspondence that we had with the other organisations. We were content that the two organisations that did respond were representative for both producers and processors, and the timelines were tight. It was ultimately to enable us to bring this forward. As we've already said in terms of setting out the process, it was important that we brought this forward to enable that time for scrutiny and the ceilings, and then enable the QMS to undertake the work and engagement that they need to do. It sounds very much to me like all of the questions about what happens to the levy after this technical instrument has passed should be directed to QMS. I took heart from what the cabinet secretary said this morning, but also what you've said in a previous letter that you would expect QMS to fully consult as widely as possible and to engage with producers and processors before taking any action on the proposed increase. Obviously, many of the questions stem from a concern that it is hugely challenging for producers in particular right now to make any sort of margin on the industry. I wonder if you could say me a little bit more broadly on A, what role you would expect QMS to take, and B, how the Government is more widely supporting producers and farmers at a difficult time? Absolutely, and I think that there is a really important point there, because I think that it's really important that we don't conflate or, by any means, confuse the different roles here and responsibilities in relation to that. As I say, we have the responsibility to bring forward the SSI and to setting the levy ceilings, but it is up to QMS to, if they want to raise that levy, to then have that consultation and that discussion with their levy pairs should they decide to do that, and then put forward those proposals to me, ultimately, for approval. I'm sure that the committee would agree about the hugely valuable role that QMS undertake in terms of their marketing and promotion of red meat and everything that they do for our red meat industry. I've seen it first-hand myself in terms of even the different trade fairs that they attend what they're doing in terms of export and the value that they bring in for our red meat sector, which equates to the tens of millions annually in terms of their promotion, but also in terms of the strategy that, as I've outlined, they're consulting on and engaging with their members on at the moment, showing how they really are driving forward that sustainability for the red meat sector going forward, as well as considering a number of exciting different projects. Again, it's up to them they need to have that discussion with their levy pairs to show exactly what they're doing on their behalf and why that role is so critically important going forward. If I could fill one of the respondents to the consultation said that a change in the levy ceiling within the order must not be taken by QMS as industry agreement to an increase in the levy rates paid, which I am assuming something that you may agree with, but I don't want to put words in your mouth because it is for QMS to determine that. Secondly, we understand that although there's no requirement for QMS to consult, ministerial approval is still required at the start of each financial year, regardless of whether there's a change to the payable rates or not. Yes, that's absolutely right. In response to both of those points, I would say that if any proposal comes forward to me about that or there was any proposal about an increase in rates, I would be expecting QMS and I would be expecting to see evidence that they have consulted and engaged widely with their members and with their levy pairs about any proposed increase in rates or what that levy rate is going to be. That's the very least that I would expect. I have seen Kate Forbes just very eloquently ask all the questions that I had, so thank you Kate. I would notice from the committee's own responses that we've got broad support across the industry for the right to be able to put the price up as and when as long as that consultation happens, so I just thought it was worthwhile getting that on record. Absolutely. I've got a small supplement from Rhoda, and then Emma Harper. Just on Kate Forbes's questions, there seem to be two points you're making, one, that there would have to be agreement from the industry for a price increase and two, that there would have to be consultation with the industry. The two things are not the same thing. Agreement is very different to consultation. I just want to know which is the correct response. Do the industry have to agree? One thing I would expect to see is that there's that engagement and consultation with industry. I think that that's a given. I think that they need to be consulted about any potential increase in the levy rate, which would be up to QMS to do. Of course, any proposals they bring forward, I would hope, would have that industry agreement. At the moment, I can't speculate on what any potential decision might be or what that would look like, but I know that they have a strong relationship and are engaging with their levy pairs as we speak at the moment, undertaking that engagement across the country too. I would hope that they would again reach that overall agreement and consensus around what, if they were proposing to increase the levy, about what that should be. It's not necessary. Again, QMS would put a proposal to me, and then it's up to Scottish ministers to agree that one way or another. I'm just trying to set that out in terms of the overall process. Do you have the ability to go back to QMS and say that we're not satisfied at the consultation and we actually want to see approval from the stakeholders? Is that something you could do? Again, I think that we're going down all sorts of different roads here about and speculating about what might or might not happen. Again, we haven't been in that position in the past. The proposals are put to Scottish ministers for approval. QMS is a responsible body and I know that they would be undertaking that engagement. As I say, I know that it's already started anyway. I don't think that they need any prodding from me or to be told to engage with the industry. Again, that is what they are doing just now. Of course, it's within their best interests to do that and to have that good relationship with levy pairs. No, absolutely. I'm not questioning the ability for QMS to do that. It was just that whether you had the power to go back and the backer orders question to say that, yes, you've consulted but we actually want to see an affirmative, positive response from the industry that the increase in levy is acceptable. I'm sure we would have these discussions with QMS and I don't think it would be a case of, again, I think we're jumping automatically to what a negative situation might be. I don't think that we would be there at all. I think that we have a very strong working relationship with QMS and I know that QMS has that same relationship with their levy pairs too, so that engagement from their side is important. I don't imagine that we would end up in that situation, to be honest. Okay, that's fine. Thanks very much. Emma Harper. Thank you, convener. I know that I'm a substitute for this committee, but I just want to bring it back right to the beginning. This is a technical amendment, it's just a technical bill, and I know that, in my engagement with Call to Meet Scotland, they're competent, they're professional, they're responsible, they're diligent about working with the businesses and the farmers, and so I would trust Call to Meet Scotland to do the correct engagement and everything like that. I suppose my question is back to the, this is a technical amendment so that it allows Call to Meet Scotland to then go out and engage if levies are to be increased, which would be incrementally done over an annual engagement basis, is that correct? Yes, you're absolutely right, and I would just want to agree with everything that you said about Call to Meet Scotland, but again that's a discussion that they then need to have, but you're absolutely right. This is technical, it's just raising the ceiling, it's not raising the levy because that's a discussion that needs to happen and that QMS need to have with their levy pairs. I don't think that the committee was in any doubt exactly what this instrument was. Is there any more questions from members? QMS is likely to go out to review in another five years. What if they have reached the ceiling, do we find ourselves in this position again and just go at it again if there are extreme market conditions? It is relevant that they have cited the inflationary pressures to implement this, so we may find ourselves in another position, but I suppose we just reach that bridge when we come to it. Yeah, you're absolutely right in that sense, but I think what we'll have tried to do with the ceilings that are proposed here is try and future proof that so that we don't need to come back every year to have a look at the ceilings and decide whether they're at the appropriate level or not. As I say, there's been a variety of different factors that have come together in bringing forward the proposals for the ceilings at the rates that we've set out in the order today, which have taken into account all these different factors, looked at averages over the course of the past 10 years to then try and project that forward as best as you possibly can to future proof it, but of course never say never. We don't know what's going to happen a few years down the line, but we do hope, with the ceiling rates that are brought forward today, that that does future proof it to a certain degree. Could I just clarify one other thing, please, convener? The QMS were a million pounds short. They had a shortfall of a million pounds in their sort of workings out in terms of the levy and their activity. Did they raise that with you when they asked you to make this technical change? That's not a discussion that I've had with the QMS. Any further questions? No. There's just one point that I'd like to raise on the policy note. You are aware that the committee wrote to clarify some things. We just feel or, as convener, felt that the policy note was lacking in some information that could have been provided. There wasn't any indication of what the proposed changes are or the history behind the policy. Just as a general note, and it's something that we find quite often, there could be more detail in the policy note, which would help the committee when we come to look at those SSIs. This one could have easily had a little bit more information to help the committee before we had to write and engage our clerks to investigate it. Cabinet Secretary, thank you very much to your officials for this one. That's been hugely helpful. Of course, we've got the real business to do. We've now had the discussion. We now move on to the formal consideration of the motion to approve the instrument and invite the Cabinet secretary to move motion S6M-11038. Does any member wish to debate the motion? No. Is the committee content to recommend approval of the instrument? Yes. Finally, is the committee content to delegate authority to me to sign off our report on our deliberations on this affirmative SSI? That completes consideration of the affirmative instrument. I thank the cabinet secretary and officials once again for the information that is provided. I will briefly suspend to allow a change in the witnesses. Our next item of business is an evidence session on the welfare of dog Scotland bill with a member-in-charge of the bill, Christine Grahame, joining us this morning. We've scheduled 90 minutes for this session. I welcome to the meeting Christine Grahame, MSP, the member-in-charge of the bill, Rose Thompson from the Rhon Governmental Bill Unit and Claudia Bennett, the Scottish Parliament Solicitor. I invite Christine Grahame to make an opening statement. Thank you very much, convener, and I welcome the opportunity to give evidence to the committee on my bill. I've been working with a wide range of organisations on the policy within the welfare of dog Scotland bill for the last six years. As the minister highlighted in evidence, the breeder's licence scheme that the Government brought forward had its genesis in my previous member's bill from last session. The bill is therefore a reduced version of that former bill but with the valuable addition of the certificate process to complement the code of practice. Six years ago, I recognised the growth in supplies of puppies and dogs purchased online and from puppy factory farms and considered what could be done to reduce this. I decided that, if supply was the issue, the current legislation and policing were not sufficiently impacting on this then perhaps. I should then tackle demand and that would approach supply. We all know that there is a surge in the level of dog ownership across Scotland exacerbated by Covid and combined with a lack of informed approach from the public to buying a dog, which I understand led to a rise in unscrupulous breeding. It is therefore more urgent to ensure those thinking of getting a dog do so in an informed way. My bill is a valuable tool in the box alongside other on-going work set out by the Scottish Government in the minister's evidence. The animal welfare issues, emotional distress, massive vets fees and high mortality rates from illegal puppy farming or buying a dog that someone cannot care for has, I think, been well established to the committee. Evidence from key stakeholders supporting my bill demonstrates the scale of the issue. The SSPC estimates that the illegal puppy trade is worth £13 million in Scotland a year. Dogs trust highlights the huge rise in problems arising from buying a dog, where it cannot be properly looked after with abandonment rates rising. I have to say that there is a programme this morning on the news where it was showing that abandonment rates are still on the rise. With 96 per cent of rehoming centres reporting an increase also in behavioural issues, calls to the SSPC a helpline on giving up pets has quadrupled with costs, vet care and inappropriate living conditions cited as common reasons. A recent survey found that only 29 per cent of people considered cost when they got their pet. Dogs on the most frequently abandoned animal and rehoming centres experience incredible pressures as a result. Batteries found only 5 to 10 per cent of puppies across the UK are coming from licensed breeders who should ensure healthy puppies and appropriate new owners. It follows therefore that 95 per cent of puppies are bought from unlicensed sellers. Awareness of signs of unscrupulous breeding is low. A PDSA report found only 43 per cent of dog owners knew a puppy should be seen with its mother. The SSPC highlighted that 65 per cent of owners found their pets online, with 2.5 million of associated fraud. 20 per cent of puppies bought online fall ill or die within a year according to Government commissioned research. The dog's trust submission describes the purpose of the bill, and this is the purpose, as educating and providing prospective dog owners with the tools to purchase a wee homo dog more responsibly and to identify and avoid any unscrupulous breeding practices. That is what the crux of what the bill would achieve to educate, to change the behaviours of the public, preventing so many of the problems that I have just highlighted to you. That is why the general principles of the bill are supported by the clear majority of organisations submitting written evidence to you, including SSPCA, Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, Blue Cross, Dogs Trust, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and a number of local authorities. Two key points that I want to make on the contents of the bill, if I may convener before answering your questions. First, why do we need a code when the Government could just revise and promote the old one, which I know has been raised? That code in this bill serves a very different purpose to the existing code. It will have a different appearance given its distinctive purpose. It applies to a different group of people, and it has a new certificate, an associated process attached to it. It applies to people considering acquiring a dog. The existing code applies to people who already own one. The code in the bill and the certificate process would do additionally three key things. Make people think twice if they realise that they cannot afford one or that it does not fit in with their lifestyle or living space. Secondly, help people to have more time to identify the right breed for them and their circumstances. Thirdly, help people to assess the situation that a puppy is being sold in to give them clear warning signs that they may be buying from their legal puppy trade. The code will also be short and easily understood. It is a punchy checklist of key considerations. That will include the key questions that I set out in my bill, contrasting with the existing code, which is a long-referenced document, running to 28 pages linked to a wealth of other reference material. I want mine to be easily understood. Substreaming the contents of code, I suggest that the existing code would be the key considerations that I am seeing to get biased and engaged with, would get lost and therefore have less prominence. Furthermore, the distinct purposes of the two codes would be diluted. Clarity would be lost. The code therefore would be less effective. I also want to emphasise, convener, the importance of the certificate. There is no certificate process associated with the existing code. The certificate seeks to ensure that anyone buying a dog will reflect on the questions to be answered as part of that certificate. That will prompt them to reflect on the questions and, I hope, reflect further. The briefest considerations of those questions will give pause for thought, no pun intended, for those buying a puppy through online sales. The consideration of the cost, the breed, questioning why they cannot see the mother with a puppy and so on, as well as asking them to sign it and confirm they understand the need to retain the certificate, should the authorities have cost to see it. That is based on a process followed in France, where, as of 2022, a certificate is required when you buy a dog and, indeed, a number of other animals. Both my certificate and the French certificate also require the provider to sign the certificate, which creates a responsibility on the supplier to ensure that the acquirer has gone through all the necessary steps in the checklist of questions contained in the certificate. Convener, I have listened carefully to the evidence that you have received and the recurring themes and questions from members. On the point about the Government being able to do the work required to create a new code without my bill, I would say this. The policy work, drafting, consultation and scrutiny has already been undertaken. The Government has made it clear that it supports the code and the certificate process, and has even considered how it would amend the bill at stage 2. So how would asking the Government to begin this work again be a good use of parliamentary government time or the time of the animal charity sector, amongst others, and indeed for the welfare of animals? In addition, the bill includes a legislative requirement from the code to be publicised. That is combined with an acknowledgement from the Minister that the costs associated with this element of the bill seem entirely reasonable, given assurances that the awareness raising will definitely happen. That is the key difference between a new successful code and new certificate process and the existing code, which has very low awareness levels among the public and has not been revisited or revised since 2010. I am just coming to the end. Finally, I see the clerk looking agitated. Members will have seen the letter that I sent to the minister last week. I am wholly committed to the intention behind part 2 to improve traceability, so any dog being sold or transferred in Scotland needs to be on a searchable database. That would enable the public to take informed decisions when sourcing a puppy, and it would aid enforcement, making puppies sold out with either regime, including from the illegal puppy trade, far easier to identify. That said, if there is an alternative being actively pursued by the Government through the use of microchipping, that would either deliver the benefits of part 2 by another means. I think that that would make it close consideration as a viable alternative to the register of unlicensed letters that I propose, especially given the Government's indication to seek to remove part 2 by amendment at stage 2. I am still arguing for it, but if it comes to push or shove about part 2, then I would be content if necessary for the committee. If they wanted that to be removed about the register for the time being, I would be content to say that I would undertake to accept the Government's amendment subject to us moving on with a microchipping national database. I am not going to accuse you of filibustering because we are still going to have 90 minutes of questions, but I believe that you probably answered them all in your opening statement, but we will get kicked off. Thank you for that, that has been really useful. Can I ask a very simple question? How would a voluntary code of practice on the responsible purchasing and selling of a dog in practice change behaviour? The certificate is not voluntary. The certificate would be that, if the code of practice comes into being, the certificate is mandatory. That is very useful for ensuring that people have read and understood why I think it is quite simple. I mean that there are very basic questions that most of us would ask ourselves, getting a popular dog, so that people would have that. That would require both the person who is transferring the dog and the person who is acquiring it to have seen and signed and said, we understand these conditions. It is also useful to animal welfare organisations if, at the end of the day, an issue arises about the welfare of the dog or whatever. Not punitive, if there is an issue. They can say, well, you do know you require the certificate and this is something that is. As I emphasise throughout, it is not a punitive piece of legislation, it is to change public behaviour. You touched on it being a lot about awareness. The certificate is in effect a reassurance that you have read the instructions, so to speak. You have taken the time to read something and you have signed to do that. Given that most people will want to do the right thing by a pet and there will always be people who just disregard common sense when it comes to responsible ownership. Will we not just get people ticking or signing a certificate without actually doing it and it won't result in any benefit because it is once again voluntary? It is not voluntary in that sense. If I go to the bill itself, here we are at section 4. Before acquiring the dog, the prospective acquirer is to complete a certificate, not may complete a certificate, so it is mandatory. It really is. Many people do reflect, but there are too many people for very good reasons that don't reflect before they acquire it. We see that by the number that are being abandoned and the number that are the vast criminal puppet raid that is £2,500 for a dog, that is a puppet that has been brought up in dreadful conditions. They are desperate, so it puts the price. I said at the beginning what was the purpose. The purpose was to ensure that people think twice. This to me is saying, well, I have got to look at this and I have to complete a certificate relating to matters mentioned in some section 4, so I have got to go through all this. It is a really think twice thrice four times before you do it. Maybe at the end of that you say, yes, I do want to get a dog, but I better not get that breed or I have got to go and see it with its mother, and not buy online because there is a huge increase online. A little teddy bear puppies and things that are very popular. The result is often puppies that are poorly bred, puppies that are poorly behaviourally trained and puppies that come from really bad sources. So it really is all round good egg stuff, as it were, for both the animal and the person getting it. So do you think you would assist in the SSPC, so if they did come across a case of where a dog's welfare hadn't been looked after probably, they could refer back to the certificate to say, well, you should have been aware that this type of dog, whatever, and would actually help in potentially prosecutions or animals being taken away or whatever to solve that. It would be an extra tool for the SSPCA. It was actually the SSPCA that brought my attention to the French certificate, but it's not necessarily a prosecution of taking the dog away, it could just simply be a matter of educating. So must look at it as something that is additional to what they have, and as I say, the thrust of this is not punitive, the thrust of this is please educate yourselves about this, because when I did this six years ago it was bad enough but it's got worse. So to focus on this at the beginning, I hope, means that it's a happy outcome for people who want the comfort of a pet dog, but also will deal with online sales where you don't know where the pets are coming from or the state they're in. Okay, thank you. Kate Forbes. Thanks very much. I wanted to unpack a little bit around why your legislation is needed compared with what we have already, and I think that you've answered that quite comprehensively. But why do you think that the Scottish Government hasn't, even though it's different from what you're proposing, why has the Scottish Government not updated or revisited the code since 2010? Is that indicative of the lack of concern by the Scottish Government? Is it indicative of the fact that they feel updating it wouldn't necessarily solve the problem anyway? I know it's for the minister, but you must have considered whether that might have been a route for achieving the purposes you want to achieve. It's more than that, Ms Forbes. It's a case of a simple focus thing. I've already addressed in my opening statement, if this were to be absorbed into the general codes, to me it gets lost in translation. What I wanted was to focus on purchasing and acquiring of puppies in an uninformed fashion, which was also ancillary to an increase in the puppy factory farms, not the only thing, but it was part of it. I think that by making that simple code, you're dealing with a different cohort of people. You're dealing with people who are, for a good reason, want the company of a pet to see it. You're making them focus on that. I hope that, if that proceeds by doing that code, you then change the nature of, if I may call it loosely, the unlicensed puppy trade. I suppose that we're conscious that that is a logical conclusion, that if something stands alone on its own merit, it inevitably is going to be clearer and more accessible. But there is a lot of legislation in and around animal welfare and so on, which becomes quite a littered landscape, a cluttered landscape. Does that have its own challenges, though, for anybody coming into contact with this issue? Is to know how is best to prosecute what guidance is actually relevant to them and where do they even start? I think that I would clutter it even more, if this were to be absorbed into existing. I'm decluttering it. What is the biggest problem that starts out when you have the looking after a dog as a pet? It starts from the moment you get it. If you get the wrong pet, the wrong circumstances, for the wrong reasons, haven't seen it with its mother, you'd get problems from the start. So dealing with the welfare issue once you have a pet, you should really be dealing with it in advance of that. On top of that, this legislation would require you to have almost self-certification with the person transferring you. They've got a job here to do as well. They've got to say they think you're the right person. A licensed breeder will do that. A good licensed breeder will check you out. I won't let any Tom Dicker Harry—if that's not a PC now to say Tom Dicker and Harry—but anyway, Tom Dickess and Harry, they will check you out. They'll check your circumstances. Rehoming centres like the SSPC do that.  They'll check out your circumstances and they won't let you have one if you're the wrong person. So this is a level of which a person transferring to you who's not licensed will do that, and you too will be in conversation, and you will, importantly, so far as it's humanly practicable, see that puppy with its siblings with the mother. That tells you an awful lot about how that has been brought up. The certificate will say, I've thought about all that. Maybe people don't always get it right, but it will mean they pause and do it. I'm sure that everyone sitting around this table, if they were thinking of getting a puppy, would do that, but that's not the case for many people, for a very good reason. Covid highlighted that, and that's just to make sure that they do what everybody around here, I think, would do. Thank you. One very short one. I'm sorry, Ross Holmes. I'm sorry, just a brief on specifics of the point you made about how existing legislation would sit alongside this bill, and it's just to mention, in relation to criminal liability, so deliberately the bill is drafted in a way that it lifts sections from existing, the 2006 existing act, so failure to comply with requirements of the code or the certificate can be taking a supporting evidence if other animal welfare offences have been committed, and that also complements the 2021 regulations, so I can provide the committee with the list of the ways in which those peace legislation fit together in terms of how the SSPCA would actively potentially pursue something. It's actually the policy memorandum at page 7, the current law and practice, and how enforcement would be taking. That's why it's not necessary to put it into this particular case. That's our core question, convener, is whether the very laudable aims are best served through alternative legislation or changes to the current legislation. I think that you've answered that helpfully. I've got one last small point, which is that you've made the point that what is distinct about this is that you are reaching prospective keepers and owners rather than existing, which is a notoriously difficult group to reach because, by its very nature, a prospective is not necessarily easy to identify and really does boil down to somebody's foresight in looking at what they might have to engage with. How do you envisage raising awareness of this so that prospective keepers know that they will now be caught by new legislation? First of all, the major owners are suppliers. They are in the business. Many of them, some may not, but most of them are. The big owners are suppliers, but, in terms of the code, there is a duty upon the Scottish Government to publicise that. There is also the issue of the certificate, which I think makes—it takes a whole change in the way of engagement. Very rarely do we say to people that if you've read a code, if you've read the legislation, you've got to sign something saying you've read and understood it. I think that the engagement is saying you're part of this. In part of the issue, I want the public to understand is that you are the custodians and you're policing the welfare of the Scotland's puppies and young dogs that come into the system to come into it. They are the people who will do it. That's why I go back to its demand that will change the nature of supply and informed demand. It's a horrible expression to man, but informed demand will mean that the puppies that come through in my expectation will change, because people will say, wait a minute, I've seen this puppy online. I know I can't—I'm not supposed to do this. I don't know who this person is. Or you'll see there's somebody at a market that's got some puppies in the van. Trouble is, people think they're rescuing the animals, and all that's happening is that these are products for sale. They're not rescuing, because if you see your puppy in a distressed state, and it's a little bigger—I'll take it—all that happens is in the conveyor belt of these factory farms, some bitches being put through the system to produce more puppies. By doing that, you become part of regulating and being part of the system. I think that it's good for owners.  I've gone through those tests myself and said, I can't do this. Because I've got the cat and because I'm not there and all these things in my age, you have to take that into account. You have to do this and say to yourself, I'll be hard. There are other ways of enjoying the company of a dog if you must. You can foster it, you can go in the pet shelter and take them for walks, but maybe it's not right for you to have that. What distresses me is that I've had six years of doing this, and in that time it's got worse in the system. If I hadn't got worse, I'd have packed it in. I don't need to be arguing this. I could leave it to the Government. I'd have packed it in, but the point is it hasn't. I think that by doing this legislation, pushing the Government to put a code to it, pushing them to do it, we move the dial to use that horrible expression. You've just said that you've been working on this for six years. Would you be disappointed, because things have changed in those six years? We know that the code of practice has probably been outdated now, and it's got shortcomings. Would you be disappointed if the Government combined the two? I was going to tear my hair out, but I've done that already. I would be disappointed. This isn't an ego trip. I'd be disappointed because I don't think it would work as this would work. That's my key. I care about Christine Grahame's legislation. I care about effectiveness of a code of practice in changing the way people behave in acquiring a puppy or a dog. If I thought that in the next year the amending existing codes would be effective, but I don't think so at all. The questions are really simple. You can see that for yourself. There are straightforward questions that anybody can understand. It's not complex. The existing codes are 28 pages with all these links. Who's going to read that? This is straightforward. We checklist. I see that Roses Thomson's quote wanting to come in there. Just very briefly, on page 12 of the policy memorandum is a sample of what the certificate could look like. It could be in plainer English, I imagine, but effectively that's the entire contents of the code on two sides of A4. The key questions, how was the puppy? Have you met the mum? Are you familiar with whether or not there's a breeders license? Have you taken all the reasonable steps to establish that? It's two sides. That's the core contents of the code, just to give you a sense of how distinct that would be from the longer code that the member mentions. I know we're moving on from this subject, but I just want to make a point that, in the evidence, it has been suggested that it's confusing and it's burdensome to have the two, which really speaks to the previous question. That's the point that the Government hasn't committed to amending the current code, but I also would repost that by saying that I dispute that in that this is so simple that I could go out tomorrow with that list and say to people in Tesco's that little list of things that you should check out and I think they would understand it, but if I went out with a full amended code, I think they would go for goodness sake. Forty pages, I'm not reading that. It leads us on nicely to the question from Alasdair Allan. I wonder if you could say a wee bit about the code of practice and why you chose it to put it on the face of the bill, rather than some other mechanism perhaps that might have given ministers the power to regulate in that area? Right, here we go. Now, to me these, as I've said, these are the fundamental questions to ask when you're buying a job. It's not complete, it's open to the Government within the ambit of these questions if they wish to have additional questions, but these are the very straightforward ones and I put them there to ensure that these would go on to any code as a direction to the Government. Too much legislation is complex when you're asking the public to operate in legislation. It's different if you're asking lawyers. Asking the public has to be easily understood and I think the lists that I have put in the face of the bill, which I wanted to code, they're easily understood. They're not complicated for people, but they're important that they are followed. So why I've said that, there's scope for other information of the Government, but not to go beyond that kind of ambit, but the code is constructed that are absolutely vital. If you look through the questions that I've got in the bill, which I will now dig out, if you look at them, there's nothing. This is straightforward English. Is the breed suitable? It's an important question. Is the breed suitable for you and your family? Is the environment suitable? You're six floors up, I'm going to get a great big dog that needs a lot of exercise. It's not a good idea, a lift might break. These things are simple things. Would the dog fit in with the composition of the households? You've got a baby on the way. Is this a good time to get a dog? You've got a lot of young children. What breed should you have? Are the costs associated with keeping the dog food-big? I've said it in the opening statement very few people think you don't. It's an emotional thing. So when they don't consider the costs that lie in, I believe you mean when you walk into the vets, you've either got to have insurance for the dog or get a big pocket of money in it because it's expensive. Are you committed to carrying the dog?  You're going to have it for 10, 15 years. Your life will move on. Are you ready for you to take that dog and move on with it? Those are not complicated questions, but I think that they are the kind of questions because this is to educate the public that the public will understand, and they won't be offended by them. You've got to have the public on your side. I suppose that the question is also about, and this is something that we wrestle with and, as you'll be more than familiar with in legislation in general, about how much of a code of conduct appears on the face of a bill and how much is left to secondary legislation or action by ministers. I wonder if you'd considered that balance when you were—how you decided on what should appear on the face of the bill in the code. I decided, after consultation obviously with the various organisations that supported, that these are the basic questions. I think that once you've gone through those basic questions, there may be for another person another question that they might ask. For example, they might have a medical condition that will deteriorate their ability over time. That would be a different question for them. The basic ones, which are not often considered by people, are the ones that you need to start with. Simply, where am I living? Is this the right place? What's my family like? Do you have cats? Do you have another dog? What's this? All that kind of—some people, in fact, may even ask the vet before they get a pet, so that you don't need to put that in, but that's part of the consideration of things. I thought that these were just good starters for 10, as it were. Finally, convener, you mentioned that you couldn't have a list that was 40 pages long, and I appreciate that. Were there other things that you considered and decided not to put in there on that list? I mean, one of the issues that I'm sure you probably did consider was the issue of microchip, for instance. I wanted to keep it short, punchy, easily understood. If you're going to educate, don't put too much in for people. Perhaps, as a former secondary teacher, I realise that you can only teach so much in one lesson. To me, these were key. As I said to you previously, there may be additional questions that somebody else is asking themselves, but those are the basics. It's open to the Government, as I say, in that section, subject to being within the ambit of what I already have, to add any other ones that they may consider. That is within the ambit of what's there. Thank you, convener. Can I just follow on from that? Have you given any consideration to regulation making powers to amend the content of that through sub-legislation? Sorry, don't quite follow that. Have you considered how, in this bill, you could ensure that the regulations were in place to allow amendment through a sense of legislation? Are you referring to my letter to the legislative committee, the PPLR? If you were going to revise that list, for example, if you're successful in getting through the microchipping section, surely you'd want a microchipping in one of the 10 or whatever notes, or if more information comes forward that, bad or say, SSPCA thinks important to be on the face of the bill, have you given any consideration how that would happen? First of all, it could happen at stage 2, if within the ambit of the bill someone wanted to add something at stage 2, but then also in doing the code, the time the code goes through and I've got my letter to the PPLR when I'm quite content that it goes through parliamentary scrutiny, there's an opportunity there, but within the ambit of the purpose of the bill, educating and so on, and not extending beyond its purposes, as it were. As at stage 1, it's a starting point laying the groundwork. I guess that you've omitted to put anything in there about microchipping, which is going to be quite important. We've passed the bill with what's there currently, I suppose what I'm asking is, shouldn't there be some route to amend that, because the Government are even saying that there are some tweaks that will be required. Now, they could bring them through secondary legislation, but we might have a new minister who gets advice, and after we pass this potentially at stage 3, the ability to amend it is then gone unless you put something in there that allows it to be updated through secondary legislation. Well, first of all, the Government has not undertaken anything about microchipping. I seem to recall, convener, you may have been in the Audit Committee in 2016, I may be wrong, you weren't, I'm aligning you. I raised this in 2016 about a national microchipping database, and there was a vague undertaking that they were looking at and nothing has happened in all that time. I would love for that to be a national microchipping database. I think that that would solve an awful lot, but it would be open, I've passed to Ross here or to Somsen, but I think in my view it would be open for the Government to amend that in, if they would want it to, but they've not shown any indication since 2016 to do so. But this is your bill, so why don't you have Michael Chippang in the face of me? Because I started the fridge, because I started, convener, with registration, and microchipping was nowhere on the horizon, nothing had happened since the microchipping legislation came in, so I started with registration. Now, if registration is cumbersome, as the Government claims, and they are now discussing, and we're now pushing microchipping, I'm happy. Either way, we have a database, because every puppy at eight weeks and over has to be microchipped, we have a national database of dogs, which is a beginning, and a lot of information's in that microchip, so that's fine by me. I mean, if registration is cumbersome and we're walking down the road to microchipping national database grand, that's part of why, in a way, part two, though I wanted registration, has served an important purpose, a national database. Ross, do you want to say anything? Just very briefly, the key elements on the face of the bill are the things that the member considers absolutely must be in the code, and then they can absolutely be added to, including suggestions from the bodies that you've taken written evidence from, and then, as the member confirmed, that would then be subject to consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. The code is at the time of transfer of the dog. Mitrotripping is where we move to part two about a registration system, so it wouldn't be in the code. It seems strange that there's no ability to add or remove what you've got in the face of the bill. It says in section 5, revision of code. The Scottish Ministers revise the code of practice as it has effect for the time being, so they can revise. Yes, absolutely in the code, but on the face of your bill, there's no ability to change your key points. Once the bill is passed, there is nothing in the legislation to allow that to be amended. There's stage two amendments. What I have done on that bill is, after a long consultation, try to keep it as uncluttered as possible for the prime purpose of second thoughts, third thoughts, by somebody acquiring a puppy. I think it delivers that. Other matters may then come in. You've raised microchipping. Delighted you have, but I think that that is really where we look at part two, where I was looking for registration to assist people acquiring and suppliers. If that can be done, perhaps not immediately, but if a national microchipping database to which we can add information, because at the moment there's many companies, as you know, and they're not, you move from one place to another, nobody knows, then that's great. If that moves forward, then I'm content, subject to what the Government has to say about microchipping, that part two goes. Emma Harper. Thanks, convener. Good morning to you all. I know how hard you've worked on this for the last six years, because I have been very interested in following the process, because I've been interested about illegal puppy farming and illegal puppy trafficking, and how do we reduce that and prevent that, because we know that dogs are still coming through the Port of Cairnryan, or puppies, I should say. So I'm interested, Ms Graham, in 2021 the regulations established licensing conditions for the sale of puppies under six months, such as requiring the puppy to be seen with its mother, so that is an important part of, I suppose, mitigating trafficking to see a puppy with its mother, but I'm interested to know that the bill has chosen to define a young dog as a dog under 12 months, but I think that SSPCA defines a puppy as less than six months. Can you tell us a little bit about why the bill has chosen to define a young dog as a dog under 12 months for the purpose of the additional requirements in section 3? Well, there's a first transfer, which would be the puppy stage. There's a first transfer, so if you look at the sections of the bill, you look at section 2, the sale or transfer of any dog, that's in a way to deal with if somebody were to acquire a puppy at the puppy stage from the breeder, unlicensed, then they have to go through this and do the certificate, but they may then move on to someone else, and that means they go through the process again, which is the sale or transfer of section 3 of any dog by the first owner. In a way, part thinking behind this was that you might have someone who would acquire from an unlicensed breeder, say, have done it, and then they move on to somebody else, and that way it's caught under section 3, because they've still got to go through a list of questions, they've still got to complete a certificate. With catching that bit from puppy to 12 months, that's what that was about. If you just did it for puppies, you've got a loophole already there, and that's what that was looking at. I bring six dogs over on the ferry, and there are six puppies over on the ferry, and I move them to sell them for £2.5 grand each, because they're bonnie wee spaniels, and then somebody says, right, I want to move this dog on, because that person keeps the six puppies, so this would cover moving those dogs on to another person who was going to receive the dogs. Foddia, to do the legalities, but that's my view. Section 3 relates to the sale from the first owner of the lit of puppies, but are those general questions that the public is supposed to ask themselves before getting a puppy still apply? It's that transfer, it's not just the first purchase, but you could be supplier to a choir, a choir has them for a short time, a choir to somebody else, that's what that's going for. Again, that would help to promote or reduce unregistered transfer of dogs, but again, promoting education for whoever's going to be the recipient of the young dog or the puppy, yes. Thanks Christine for coming in and giving us your evidence on your bill, and certainly I align my thoughts with Emma Harper in terms of the amount of work that you've put into to get this far. Continuing on the word loopholes came up in the last question, and so continuing there, the bill provides that young dogs are to be seen with the mother, so this is about the wording, unless this is not practicable. There were a couple of stakeholders that raised concerns about that being a loophole, and we're asking for something a bit more specific, so I wondered what you thought about that. So for example, Battersea dog and cats homes have suggested unless this is not practicable for welfare reasons, and the dogs trust suggested an example of if the mum is deceased, so I just wonder what your thoughts are. Yes, that could be the case, but that's more unlikely, but it might be that the person acquiring physically just physically is unable and sends someone in their place to do it, so that is understandable if somebody is highly disabled or whatever, then somebody else can go for them and check it out, but the majority, the vast majority, will be that the person should be seeing the puppy with the siblings and the mother unless there are circumstances. I hesitate your words exceptional, but close to that, and the main it must be that. But what do you think about the suggestions that the person going to see the puppy has to see that with the mother unless it's not practical is what you've got in the bill, but the suggestion is that that needs to be clearer and that alternative suggestions are not practical for welfare reasons, so we're really specific about why it's not. I've located it. I've got, there may be circumstances where someone can have a puppy, can't see his mother and allow for these, and there's section 2021 regulations which set out the number of circumstances, so we've got a puppy, it may only be shown to a perspective if it's together with its biological mother, now the difference is it doesn't apply if the separation of the puppy from its biological mother is necessary for the health or welfare of the puppy or other puppies from the same litter or the puppies, which you refer to, the puppy's biological mother is deceased. I mean we can see the reasons when it wouldn't be practicable, but that's already there in regulations. It is there. Most of this is common sense to people, they should be asking the person, why can't I see the puppy with his mother and challenging. But in a way part of why you're bringing forward this whole bill is partly because you would think some of this is common sense, but actually what you've discovered is that it isn't. It's because, and it has increased during Covid, is that we've got so used to things online, you get messages online, you get your shoes online, some people get their car online, and now it's quite common, relatively common for people to buy animals online, puppies online. The difference is the puppy's ascension being, the car can fall apart and it's your fault, but the puppy, the responsibility to the welfare of that animal from the moment it is bred to the moment you acquire it. So that's really what it's getting at. Our culture has changed, but we must reverse that when we're dealing with ascension being such as animals. Small supplementary, Jim, fairly. Thanks, convener, and thank you, Ms Graham, for coming to the committee. It's just a curiosity in my part. Where did the six months come from? Because anyone who's selling a pup, by and large, will sell it between eight and 12 weeks. Is there a definition somewhere that I've missed that allows it to be six months? Because usually, most pups will be sold long before they ever get to the six-month stage, and I just, that gap, I find that quite surprising. Well, I'm going to call him Claudia, but I think I made it clear. Some people are acquiring directly from the unlicensed breeder, but I thought I was dealing with what might be a loophole, might not be always a loophole, but somebody might acquire a puppet from an unlicensed breeder, keep it for a bit, maybe they can't cope with it, or maybe they've got other motives, and they then transfer it to somebody else. That's why I've got the 12-month deadline sort of thing for it, so that you've still got those obligations. Most people acquiring online, I'm not going to just focus online, but let's say online will be puppies, cute little puppies. But there will be other dogs as well that they're acquiring, there are maybe six months old, seven months old, and they've already been with somebody, maybe not with the unlicensed breeder, but with somebody else. The same obligations are there, so that's why I took it up to 12 months. Different rules from first unlicensed breeder, you can see in the bill, to those that are dogs up to 12 months. Okay, what do you want to? Yeah, just to add that, the intention originally was that the register, which is where this 12-month requirement comes from, was supposed to be a temporary register, so people... The first owner of the litter of puppies only has to register once that person intends to sell or transfer the puppy. So the owner might originally intend to keep the puppy and keep it for a few months, and then realise it's too much. And then once the intention to sell or transfer is there, only then does the registration requirement arise. And the code was supposed to work, or the intention is that the code and the register work hand in hand, and that's why this 12-month time limit was adopted for part of the code as well. Rachel, have you got very small, because I'm just conscious of time on this? Just on that point, if somebody went to a welfare home, a dog and cat home, and there was a sheet of puppy that somebody had said that they couldn't cope with, how does your bill support an individual who wants to rehome that puppy, but that puppy has very difficult behavioural issues or needs specific conditions or requirements? I have to say, it's a good question with Hamilton, but they're very strict. The rehoming sense of the SSP and dogs trust are very strict. If they've got a dog with behavioural issues, cutesy that it may be, and somebody says, oh, I just love it, they wouldn't. They would say, this dog has issues, and quite often they keep them and retrain them. They are, in fact, huge custodians of the welfare of the animals they have and of the people that want them, and they simply will not do it. I know that from experience, because I'm a member of the SSP, so it probably should have declared I'm also a patron of the Edinburgh dog and cat home, and I know they won't do it. They've had some dogs there for a couple of years, because they haven't got the right match for their dog. I turn now to the issue of the certificates for ownership. We had the round table in September on animal welfare stakeholders generally express support for the certificates, but the dogs and cats home raised the issue of enforcing the certificates. You've already said that the certificates are mandatory, but whose responsibility would it be to ensure that a certificate is actually completed? Well, it's the responsibility of the transferee, the person who's the dog that's transferring over to somebody else who's acquiring it. It's their responsibility for them to be a certificate, but the certificate is to be reduced, I have to have it all the time, but if there's an issue arising, then an animal welfare organisation such as the SSPC that might receive a call of concern for the welfare of a dog in a household can ask, post this, if this goes through, to see the certificate. Of course, today everything can be online, you can print things out or you can get them alive, it's not doing printing, so you can actually demonstrate, well, yes, I did do that, but you haven't done the certificate, you're supposed to do it, but there are circumstances, this again is an educational thing, it's not punitive, so there may be circumstances in which the person has not done it, and there's a within the legislation, there's scope within the legislation here and in the criminal legislation under the animal welfare 2006 act for circumstances where there's no allowance for it, you know, where somebody hasn't done something, but it's not been maligned, it's been negligent in a sense, but not so negligent that they deserve to have any penalty for it. So there's, in all legislation, there should always, in my view, except in road traffic accidents and so on, when it's absolute, is there's a flexibility for certain circumstances, but you would have to show why you didn't know about it. But again, the certificate is really, it's to make people aware and know that they have read and done this, it's a physical demonstration that they've known and done it. I, most people, frankly, because it's not onerous, will be pleased to do it, but say, well, I'm happy to do that, you know, that was a good idea. But it comes back to people who are responsible, people who are responsible will do it anyway, and obviously you're trying to reach those, they're responsible.  So I wouldn't call them irresponsible, it's just that it's very hard, think of Covid and people stuck at home over two years and how they needed companionship. I wouldn't call it irresponsible. What I'm just saying is, you may wish to proceed but just think what suits you at this time, and it may very well be at the end of the day, it's quite right that they get a dog for companionship, a puppy for companionship, but it's having considered everything else, maybe getting the right dog at the right time. So I would be careful about saying they're irresponsible, I just think that they need to think, it's tough to say, no, I'm in the wrong place to have a puppy, it's tough to say that to yourself, you desperately want it, but it may be the right thing for you at that time even, and for the puppy, but importantly it is also, if you're going to do it, having considered everything, you get it from the right place, you know, so it's not just the right reason, the right place. Thank you. So just a very short answer. Do I need a tin hat? If you could. No, no, so it's the responsibility of the seller to ensure that the acquirer has filled in the certificate which says that they've read all the requirements, if you like, and then the acquirer and the seller must sign that certificate, so it's really the responsibility of the seller to ensure that the buyer has undertaken the checklist. Let's just flip that a little, suppliers should be more, suppliers in the mean will be more aware, but both must sign the certificate, both must be aware of the responsibilities under the certificate. So the legislation would suggest. I think I'm being supported. Claudia. The main emphasis is on the acquirer and the acquirer, for example, has to complete the certificate and printed out. The responsibility on the supplier is to check. And the acquirer must challenge the supplier, I think that's the point, challenge is perhaps too strong a word, but must question. We're back to the purpose, if I go back to this. The purpose again is to stop casual emotional acquiring of puppies, which is not in the interests of the puppies and it's not in the interests of the people who are acquiring them and it's to make them pause and that the code separated off is so simple and straightforward because it's to educate that section of the public quite likely to affair to not arrest but just don't think long and hard enough and it might be in a year's time it would be the right thing for them, but it's not the right thing for that time, so that's what this is about. Okay, thank you. Again, as briefly as possible just the conscious of time, how does the code in the certificate apply to buyers resident in Scotland who wish to purchase a puppy somewhere else in the UK or for abroad? No, if the resident in Scotland it applies but I can't legislate, no government can legislate beyond the jurisdiction of Scotland, but one of the questions you would be asking if it was coming in from puppies imported from abroad, whether it's from Ireland or from Romania or wherever, you're not seeing it with its mother. The point is you've got to see that puppy with its mother in more seconds, you can't see it and you should be seeing where's this puppy coming from. But it doesn't matter whether it's abroad or anywhere else does it, because you can't compare anybody out with Scotland to basically apply the certificate rules at all. No, but the point is the acquirer will be seeing where, here's this puppy for sale, I can't get to see it, where's it coming from? Where's it coming from? They've checked, it's coming across the boat to Stranraaf from Southern Ireland from a puppy factory farmer, it's coming from Romania where they're pretending it's a rescue puppy, which it's not, it's been bred to come to this country and say why can't I see this dog? I can't see this puppy with its mother, I'll wait a minute, something fishy going on here and that would stop them from doing it. This is the point, you can't legislate for the supplier out with the jurisdiction, but you're legislating for the acquirer, the demand purpose, that was what it was all basically stimulated this bill. Okay, so the prospective acquirer, someone buying the puppy was still need to fill in a certificate even though there was no obligation for the seller to do so? They couldn't fill it in because they wouldn't have checked, they wouldn't have been able to see the puppy, you have seen the puppy with its mother, daddy, none of that would have been there because that was the point. I mean many people think they're rescuing dogs when in fact it's a business, a European business as well as a business from Southern Ireland in the main. Jim Fairlie, oh sorry, Ross did you want to come in? No? No. A brief observation on that point, isn't that kind of, when people are going to rescue a puppy, they're doing it because they're rescuing the puppy, doesn't that kind of negate the point that you've made? Because that emotional pool to rescue that puppy will still be there regardless of whether they can see the mother or not. On the basis that they've been shown a picture and whoever it is that's selling that story saying these pups, we've found them abandoned, we need good homes for them, the emotional tug's going to be there so that part of it is going to be... That's what I've got to overcome. But that's a good question because that's what, because you're not rescuing... No, you're not rescuing, you're buying a product, that criminals are breeding, you take that puppy and there'll be another six in its place, two and a half to three grand each. Doesn't that just come back to the whole point that this is as much of an education of the population in general rather than putting provisions in place to try and force the issue? Well, I'm not forcing, I'm not forcing. To bring in this legislation to add another thing that they have to do? The point is what we have isn't working and this code being... Everybody knows about... Not everybody, but it's quite common to know about puppy factory farms now. Even today the fact that puppies are being sent back and abandoned and so on, dogs are being abandoned and so on, tells us that we're not having the problem. I'll just conclude on this for Mr Faley. The code is simple, the code is to educate, the code is to let people realise you're not rescuing, you are creating more misery for more puppies. Thank you. I'm going to move to Alasdair Allan again. He moves on nicely. Yep, I'll be great. Thank you, convener. You spoke earlier on, Mr Graeme, we all did, a fair bit about common sense and the common sense that should apply and often doesn't. So the minister and some stakeholders have suggested that already public awareness of existing codes of bats might be low. Do you feel that the bill, what you feel on the bill could improve public awareness around what's expected of people when they buy a puppy? Yeah, well first of all there's a requirement to publicise, which governments don't always do with members' bills, I have to add, although they've said they might in previous times and didn't do it, but also repeat publicity and you'll see that in the financial memorandum which mentions the cost of a publicity campaign and reinvigorating it and to me that underlines why the simplicity of this code makes it understandable because it says to people here are some things you have to consider, here's your awareness and I would hope that if the Government goes for this and actually we do have public awareness campaigns it would start with the images of what happens if you don't apply those tests, the puppies that have behavioural issues that are crammed and crates with lots of different breeds that are unscrupulously sold for a fortune, that you're not rescuing tests, these things, help us, help the various welfare organisations and local authorities and everybody else who gets involved in this to prevent wrongful breeding of puppies. One of the driving factors behind this is public awareness and education and that's the overriding reason for this bill really. Your costs suggest that raising public awareness in the year that comes, the bill comes into force is between 200 and 250,000 and then five years thereafter which are based on the Government's figures but the Government says and acknowledges that public awareness of the existing code is likely to be low. So how can you improve public awareness when you're not intending to have a bigger budget than the Government currently has? My Lord Government was content with the costs and these are the gross costs, the costs of public awareness but when you offset that which is difficult to quantify as net costs. That's the costs, not just the public purse but to welfare organisations and everything else with coping with the fallout from animals that are abandoned and that are in a state of distress or animals that have behavioural issues. The point is that you're not projecting to spend any more than the Government does currently and the Government has said and acknowledged that public awareness of the existing code is likely to be low, which suggests that they're not spending enough money on it so you're not going to spend any more money on a public awareness campaign so why would the outcomes be any better? Well first of all I'm hopeful that the certificate itself in the initial stages if this goes through the certificate itself will reduce the necessity to publicise and to run public awareness campaigns about the illegal puppy trade and doing all that so I hope the certificate, because that's the point of it. Education changed public behaviour, let the public do the job of what we I think we all want we want to end the illegal puppy trade and the distress that happens and the wrong puppies for the wrong reasons so we all want that so I'm hoping the certificate will do that. In terms of publicity campaigns they're already running them about different ones about don't buy this and they're not working they're not working because it's getting worse more people are buying online more people are abandoning them and so on so by having this particular campaign on acquisition and this is going back to the key thing the problems start when you first get the puppy there's a problem start there so I'm hoping that if we start there we decrease the requirement for subsequent things saying you know a puppy is for life not for Christmas the very famous one. Okay thank you that's a that's a useful answer. Jim Fairlie. Thanks can we are we have rehearsed this conversation in private and uh but I don't remember it's really I think it's um I think it's crucial we get it on on on the record uh that there are stakeholders and ministers have indicated that if you're the scope with part one of the bill should extend to all dogs and not just pets so can you explain why you chose to limit the scope to pet dogs and whether you'd be open to extending the scope. Well you've heard my thrust which was about people buying online and buying with their emotions that's what it was about my experience and I'm sure use this from your background is people who are acquiring working dogs they're working that's the key they know their pedigree they know their attributes they know where they're coming from in the mean they're not buying casually that dog's got to earn its keep so it's a very different kettle of fish either working dogs think about police dogs assistance dogs guide dogs gamekeepers dogs they're all trained they all have certain and actually in their breeding they have certain attributes was never aimed at that and I don't see the point because that's not the the gamekeepers the people who train the guide dogs and they are a they know what they're looking for they are educated they can say well I'm not getting that I know this calling would be very good I know it's parents the parent would know that so it's a very different thing that's why it's not that this was aimed at pets not working dogs and I don't think it should include working dogs okay I see a slight problem with this and that's if you don't broaden the definition to all dogs there will be farmers like myself who have sold pups in the past to pet homes yes so how do you define when it's a pet and when it's a working dog first of all I know that situation because my own dog my Irish setter came from a gamekeeper at Twinum and he kept two and the rest were sold as pets so I understand the circumstances well let's look at the definition of a pet under the government's 2021 licensing it says first a pet means an animal kept permanently intended to be kept permanently by a person mainly for personal interests companionship I don't know what but this one ornamental purposes wherever that is and any combination of A to C now a working dog we can have a litter and the pet one is a pet then that becomes and that comes into the legislation you know you're now transferring on that's where we get to the 12-month thing because you might take a few months to decide this dog's not got their pups not got the attributes to work on my farm and therefore you then become a transferring somebody so you come under the legislation but that's an obvious one to me that's obvious and it's commonplace because any gamekeeper's dog or if you take guide dogs I mean I've sponsored three pups and only I think it must be to do with me sponsoring but only two succeeded in becoming guide dogs the other two have become pets so they come under this legislation do you want to say something else disfair ability that in circumstances where the owner of the litter has working working dogs and is then selling to somebody who is acquiring for the purpose of it being a pet the responsibilities on the acquirer in relation to the terms of the code and the certificate okay and in that circumstance can I also say Mr Fairlie I saw my puppy with the other dogs very well socialised happy as a bunny kind of thing so I actually saw and I think the gamekeeper told us you know I'm keeping these two and these other six or not I don't need them and they'll be suitable so it's it's you know to me it's not a difficult one and the difference to my working dog is a working dog retires a working pet doesn't retire a working dog may retire and be kept with a person then after that okay thank you we're going to move on to part two the register of unlicensed litter and a question from Kate Forbes thank you very much I suppose just a broad question on this section to start with because obviously the minister was permitted the opportunity to speak about this and I was just keen to hear your perspective on the various points that have been made by stakeholders and the minister on your rationale for proposing a registration system for unlicensed litter and how you see it working in practice well the bill of course we've got licensed and set that aside this is unlicensed it mean any advert for any puppy or young dog would need to include include a registration number for the dog from a breeder or a dog from unlicensed litter and visit this would provide reassurance that someone acquiring a dog would know the owner is compliant with other regimes relating to the selling of puppies again this would require the public to be aware of the new system where every advert has a number for one or two regimes the bill provides for awareness raising and I would envisage this would need to happen on an ongoing you know a rolling register not just a one-off basis the creation of registration require would mean all puppies and young dogs sold in Scotland would be traceable which would assist local authorities and the SSP and other welfare organisations in relation to enforcement because sometimes it's difficult to know you know a dog misbehaves there's no one at the scene in sight whose dog is it so we would have that a present there is if someone is not a licensed breeder it is assumed they are breeding fewer than three litters there's no simple way to establish their breeding on a wider scale in an unlicensed way in other words they're breeding lots but they've not applied for license traceability of any puppy we did enforcement to prevent wide-scale sale of puppies from multiple litters by those in their legal puppy farm trade the register would also inform decision makers for those purchasing dogs and could highlighting whether seller is not compliant with either regime so there are the purposes of registration really traceability thank you just wanted to get that on the record okay can we move on to question from alice rallan thank you I take it we're still in the realms of 11 I didn't want to give the game away by giving it a number and what how many have you got that would be nice to know in advance okay in that case what can I ask what your your view is on concerns that the minister raised um that a registration scheme could actually provide false assurance to some um to some potential buyers is that a view that you you would refute or that you would share or well I noticed the minister suggests it was not workable not a proportionate response may not improve animal welfare could provide unwarranted assurance to buyers could provide a front for those selling puppies in legal puppy trade and a part of the fact that government intends to amend the bill to to take out that part should it proceed to stage 2 it would be to me we'd be doing it a service to stakeholders I've worked with who supported the provisions for registration and the benefits they believe are registered of unlicensed letters would bring if I didn't continue to highlight the benefits of implementing part 2 notwithstanding the position of the government what I would say and I've said this is should the committee or members of the committee be considering that it would be to support the general principles if part 2 is removed and I would strongly encourage members of this committee to consider the clear need for traceability of puppies by some means and to seek an assurance on the governance stage to report the progress we made this regard and of course I'm alluding to a national microchipping database because the minister mentioned the legal required for all dogs to be microchipped a central registered microchipped dogs would provide the traceability and the other benefits associated with the registration scheme I propose and that's an alternative to part 2 of the bill and you've seen my letter I hope to the minister regarding that making best use of legal requirement to microchipped puppies is something I've always felt passionate about so I've already said it and promotes the clear associated benefits for a long time so that would be something for people to check is this puppy on the national microchipping register. The bill specifies that the registration requirements don't apply to a first owner of a litter of puppies who is not at the time resident in Scotland and some stakeholders have suggested this may become a loophole so I wonder how to get your thoughts on that is it something you've considered. The focus of section 8 is on the first owner being a Scottish resident at time of wanting to advertise, sell or transfer at this point the litter would have to be registered now I'm back to this business of the difficulty when we've got coming from abroad before we even get to that people should have checked the puppy with its mother that's the key if somebody's got I mentioned Romania and southern Ireland if they've been eating them out with and importing them you have to have seen it with its mother now I know there's criminal ways try to get around that by having a false bitch with it and so on but that's key to it in the first instance that if somebody wanting to acquire a puppy says there's something I miss here right it's either not registered or I haven't seen a registration for this or I haven't seen it with its mother alarm bells this is not fit this is something wrong here I'm not proceeding or I'm going to meet further inquiry thank you allister allen thank you convener um just looking at the history of this bill um briefly I was a young woman at the beginning of this you know I'm sure you were miss one of the requirements in a previous version of the bill um was um that the registration scheme or the registration scheme would be a requirement of previous version of the bill but it's not the discretion of ministers um I wonder if you can explain the consideration that went into that um and are the powers in the bill necessary well I mean I want to get this bill through so I have to carry a lot of people with me including the government so I made this lighter I started out all those years ago in my youth where you know there was going to be penalties and everything else and I decided you know that there's enough a lot has changed in that time a lot has changed in terms of inflation the pressures on local government the pressures on budgets so I get to be realistic so what's important to me is to get through the education part that's why I'm prepared to compromise on others so that's why this is a lighter touch registration oh I'd love it to be tougher but you have to fit in with the times and you have to fit in with what is practicable in terms of legislation and what I think I've ended up with and the caveat about registration in the light perhaps a national microchipping system means that this I hope can become law and work I'm not interested in legislation for its own sake I want it to change what's happening out there for puppies and owners and that's why the registration scheme became a lighter touch and that's why we've even moved a bit further as I've gone along the road like you road of grant your letter to the minister about this section of the bill can I just ask quickly whether you've had a response no you haven't had a response yet okay and can I also maybe then ask so we're making the assumption that the Scottish Government would prefer a registration system based on microchipping do you have any idea of how that would work and whether stakeholders would be happy being a specific is that about you know they've alluded to the microchipping system national database being something a bit useful I don't think I'm gone so far to the best of my knowledge and let me just check in saying that it would be the equivalent to but it's a better step than having none at all yes we don't at the moment yes ross I could just quickly come in the 2016 affirmative instrument that introduced the mandatory microchipping in the policy note it says that the system could help to opportunistic dog theft by making it harder to sell such stolen dogs on it could help to trace those breeding or dealing significant numbers of dogs illegally without a license or those breeding irresponsibly so that makes the point that there is a about whether or not it's a viable alternative and the government in 2016 was acknowledging it would have that value in its policy note and you asked about organisations I know that that's about to see commented on the potential for microchipping to really aid traceability which is what part two seeks to achieve okay thank you that that's helpful so we don't really have an idea of how that would work as an alternative system at the minute well you can they can do it but I'm hoping the committee would do if it takes a view that I don't preempt you but if it takes a view that you might be supportive of this bill at stage one if I give an undertaking about part two subject to the government this would be a good example for the committee to push the government through with a national microchipping database because as I say this has been on the cards now for six years and I think it would be a good opportunity to push this forward and that would be another step forward to people identifying traceability of dogs for a whole range of reasons control of dogs notices could be on it you know I brought that forward control of dogs notices information about where the dog came from so a lot of stuff can be at you've got the right system I'm not technocrats but a lot of system can be added to the proper system more information about the dogs to have traceability throughout scotland on a rolling basis and on a national basis so I think it's a great opportunity for the committee to push the government along this road if they're going to you know say registration is to owners sorry just I understand that and that on the face of it appears simple but there's different organisations that have microchipping registers and I don't know if you've had any discussions with them about trying to pull this all into a national register obviously they make money out of it it's commercial I'll let Ross give me that specific because microchipping has come on as a sort of ancillary to this bill introduced by the minister actually in response to the committee that was the first in microchipping was mentioned in evidence but can I just pass to Ross I just also mentioned that the 2016 legislation on microchipping it doesn't necessarily say what needs to be a central database but it does say the proposed legislation which is now in place requires standardized types of microchips standardized information to be kept on the database appropriate access to the data held and systems for cross referring between different microchip databases so it's not to say that it would just the only possibility is a central database it would be about existing databases having the capacity cross refer which is what the government envisaged in 2016. Sorry tiny question do you know if that's been implemented given that legislation? Those affirmative instrument regulations have been implemented and the annex of Christine Grahame's letter to the minister are the details of all the microchipping requirements that are currently in place we can send you those regulations if that's helpful. I mean I'd be very happy for the committee to pursue you know either cross referencing on a national microchipping database I mean I think that would be superb excellent and move a long way towards assisting this legislation in this code. We've got a number of supplementaries in this it's obviously quite an interesting subject we've got Rachel Hamilton and then Ariane Burgess at Emma Harper. Whilst we know that uh I forgot what it's going to say it's fine. So the thing to you miss Hamilton. So basically a number of people this is this was as you said this wasn't part of the bill but as you said it could be something that could be part of the bill uh but that's that's a new that's a new thing and this specifically hasn't been consulted on. This hasn't been consulted on this microchipping bit in part two so therefore whilst some stakeholders mentioned it and the minister mentioned it and you've now written to the minister to clarify some of her comments does this mean that you'd have to go back to stakeholders to consult on this specific? No I mean if you're going to go down this well we're at the position where I'm keen on part one right but if you want to pursue something about microchipping in the bill it's open to the committee to take evidence it's open to the committee to take evidence on the government the government that introduced this in the evidence I sat here and the minister introduced microchipping the line about microchipping so you can always take evidence at stage two if they wanted to amend to put it in you can take evidence on it I think and can I also say we're looking at the regulations the extract the microchipping dogs got the regulation 2016 and if you look at those the details to be recorded are substantial and they're already this is already enforced but they've not got this in the sense of having it so that we can cross-reference so you get things like the full name address of the keeper the contact number, email address, the fact that the keeper is also a breeder, the fact that the keeper is a person who holds a breeding license, the name of the local authority which issued the breeders like a whole list of things are already there. What if the minister understands that as Rhoda Grant said that there are a number of microchipping databases already in operation they just don't include some of that information about the breeders how can how can this achieve adding on those parts if those are operated in a commercial interest I'm not looking to do that I'm not looking to add on my my thrust was for a registration of as we have registration every county scotland every sheep's got a number you know a registration for each puppy or transfer this has been added as a the government we're at risk of falling down a rabbit hole in the positive rabbit summit registered are they I don't know maybe they are we're going to do a search and replace rabbit with dog for the next piece of legislation but I think we're not at the stage where we're considering microchipping we're still looking at stage one which years is about a registration scheme that what could happen is that it's stage two and our amendments would come forward to potentially look at this but it would be for me as a convener to decide whether that was appropriate or whether those amendments would be taken forward so it's a rather than this expand too much can we try and keep it to what we've got in front of us because the database and microchipping is a whole different topic yeah please thank you channel database thank you for having said that I do have a supplementary on microchipping but actually may be in support of the register because we had evidence from Libby Anderson on the 20th September and she was explaining that while microchipping improves traceability of the individual dogs a register could ensure that not only the traceability but also the transparency and accountability of the breeder is understood and also we've had other witnesses have provided evidence on unscrupulous dealers switching out microchips to falsify where the animal has come from so I see your letter and your kind of possible openness to microchipping but I would ask how could that be how could those things be prevented if microchipping was if we were relying on that for the traceability but if the fact that a registration scheme is not going to be acceptable to the committee I wouldn't say I wouldn't want stage one and this bill to be sabotaged I don't mean sabotaged but to fall by the wayside because of that I mean obviously I want a registration scheme however I would say to Arianna Burgess it's discretionary it does say in the bill if I go back to it let me get the bill the registration it says very important the Scottish government the Scottish ministers may by regulations prohibit the first owner from that may by regulations so I was leaving a flexibility to them at a timing suitable because I do accept the economic pressures on government and local authorities and I've got to be realistic because the prime purpose is to repeat and bore you is to educate and acquiring. Registration is an important part and I'm pleased that you support it and I obviously I put it in because I think it's important that if push comes to shove and there is some push going forward about cross referencing microchipping I can see a way forward to satisfy us that there is some traceability of puppies and dogs in Scotland may not be the best solution but it's part of a solution. Emma Harper. Thanks convener I won't pursue because it was a suck about microchipping because it related to traceability of dogs in livestock worrying but it's not part of this at this time so I won't pursue that. Okay thank you. Rachel Hamilton. So you mentioned the cost and the pressure on local authority for enforcement and I just wondered if you think that after all the conversations that we've just been having that the estimations in your own financial memorandum might exceed the ones that you've suggested how did you come to those figures? Well I'm going to refer to the financial memorandum at page 11 and their details paragraph 61 the estimated cost to the Scottish ministers to have the register and 60,000 per annum to maintain the register there may be a cost to Scottish ministers for producing guidance as expected to be minimal and met from existing budgets and it lists a whole lot of things that come to it and goes down at the cost of publicity so the financial memorandum there are details about costs that may be acquired and of course in terms of government funding and in terms of local government funding central government funding these are gross costs and I sort of cut off from a prime there about net costs because there's a cost to the public purse of abandoned animals there's a cost to the public purse of animals that behave badly there's a cost to local authorities about policing these things and indeed some local authorities as seen submissions said they could see the benefits of educating the public to be aware before they get a little less pressure on them for example with dogs are out of control and so on because we're nip to off at the bud at the beginning in a sense by making sure the animals in the right place with the right person at the right time so these are gross costs so the cost of £1,500 per local authority it well it says it would range for local authorities between 60 and 90,000 a year or 1500 pounds per full time role but it but so Glasgow city council have made the point that with the additional demands that that just may not cover it and it's very difficult to top up to top up any additional resource costs that a local authority may need to put forward to ensure that enforcement is carried out but they also have you're also asking them to do additional things to what they're currently doing and a lot of them I think are a concern that that's going to be a burden to them before I ask Ross to go into specifics of the actual figures that's why I made a discretionary that's why my answer to miss Burgess I said you know I'm aware of inflationary pressures and government local authorities at this time they've got much their love animals people you know homes where people so are top of the pops top of the list so that's why it was discretionary bearing in mind especially as economic circumstances have changed and inflation was raging particularly last year still high so that is why it was discretionary it is also why I am prepared in terms of part two if we have some alternative that the government feels the cost of registration would be cumbersome to move with the caveat of moving on with some kind of cross referencing of microchipping I'm very very aware of costs to local authorities but on the specific figures I'll pass to Ross but in general that was my policy view of it you know because you've got to be realistic you can't you can't say to local authorities this is a whizbang system I just want you to do it at any care what it costs I do care what it costs Ross just to acknowledge that estimating the cost on local authorities was very challenging the most challenging part of the financial memorandum I would suggest and paragraph 50 the financial memorandum sets that out because it was partly based on evidence received last session to the public audit committee when it was doing post legislative scrutiny on Christine Grahame's previous bill and there was a huge range of responses from local authorities on how they approach these issues on the number of different roles that individual staff can hold so that's hyperlinked from the financial memorandum but I can provide that in full to the committee just to give a sense of the range of estimates and challenges highlighted by local authorities and even a paragraph 52 there's the cost that we have in relation to an animal wealthier officer and so on so far as it's by practicable we've looked at that but I have been aware and very very conscious that I don't want to burden local authorities with additional costs in this time when pressures are on their budgets that's why as I said I made a discretion in the government if and when they introduced the registration scheme and the other thing I just wanted to ask you about is that there could be because of some sort of cost concerns inconsistency across local authorities for example in the constituencies that we represent there might be extra requirement for cross-border enforcement and I just wondered if you had or could take into account some of the differences in challenges that local authorities would have to face and obviously increasing resource requirement I think some of the details from some of the local authorities from memory that we use as an evidence base include some of the distinct challenges I think cross-border issues was one of them the other thing that's very difficult to estimate so we didn't attempt it was any savings from enforcement over a period of time we know there'll be some but you know we'd just be plucking figures and I won't do that but as I see in the general picture of things well aware of the costs of local authorities well aware there could be benefits to local authorities but this is not the time at this very juncture in this year or next year to burden them with additional costs when they've got so much to deal with and I'm aware of that thank you thank you we've no further questions so it just leaves me to thank you very much Christine Grahame and your ngbu colleagues for providing evidence today and I suspend the meeting until 11.25 for a comfort break we now move on to our next agenda item which is a consideration of the draft plant health fees forestry Scotland amendment regulation 2023 and I welcome Lorna Slater the minister for green skills circular economy and biodiversity and her officials Clarinda Burrell tree health policy and implementation officer from Scottish forestry and David Corrigal is the sister solicitor from the Scottish government that I invite the minister to make an opening statement thank you very much convener and thank you for taking time today to consider the draft SSI the plant health fees forestry Scotland amendment regulations 2023 the regulations are being made to amend Scottish legislation in the field of plant health provision is introduced to extend the duration of an exemption from the requirements to pay fees for vital sanitary certificates for forestry exports from Scotland to Northern Ireland in certain circumstances under the UK government's movement assistance scheme this will serve to support Scottish exporters post transition period and ensure Scottish exporters retain retain access to the same support as their English and Welsh counterparts as Northern Ireland remains part of the EU plant health system exports from Scotland to Northern Ireland are required to fill EU entry requirements including vital sanitary certificates the movement assistance scheme funded by the UK government temporarily removes the requirement on exporters to pay fees associated with obtaining a vital sanitary certificate for exports of plants and plant products to Northern Ireland the duration of the movement assistance scheme has been extended to June 2025 the regulations that we're looking at today also make a minor wording amendment to schedule one of the plant health fees forestry england in scotland regulations 2015 to provide greater clarity on the scope of activities which may be carried out in relation to audit inspections by competent authorities of professional operators authorized to issue GB plant passports i consider that these regulations are therefore necessary and appropriate and my officials and I are happy to take any questions from the committee thank you minister any members any questions nope i will move on to our next agenda item which is formal consideration of the motion to approve the instrument and invite the minister to move motion s6m 10920 that the rule affairs and Islands Committee recommends that the plant health fee, Forestry Scotland amendment regulation 2023, draft be approved. Does any member wish to debate the motion? No. Is the committee content to recommend approval of this instrument? Finally, is the committee content to delegate authority to me to sign off our report on our deliberations on this affirmative SSI? That completes consideration of the affirmative instrument. I thank the minister and our colleagues for attending this morning. I'll briefly suspend to allow you the witnesses to leave the room. Our next agenda item is consideration of three negative SSIs, the rural support, simplification and improvement Scotland regulation 2023, the animal welfare and food safety international professional qualification recognition agreement implementation, miscellaneous amendment Scotland regulations 2023 and the common organisation of the markets in agricultural products, fruit and vegetables amendment Scotland regulations 2023. Do any members have any comments on these instruments? No. Everyone's content. Our final item of business is consideration of consent notification for two UK SSIs, the Windsor framework non-commercial movement of pet animals regulations 2024 and the official control extension of transitional period miscellaneous amendments regulations 2023. Do any members have any comments on either of these notifications? No. Are members content to agree with the Scottish Government's decision to consent to the provision set out in the notifications being included in the UK rather than Scottish subordinate legislation? Yes, thank you. That concludes our business in public. I now move the meeting into private session.