 Good morning and welcome to the 26th meeting of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee in 2023. We have apologies from Rhoda Grant who is unable to make the start of the meeting, but it is hopefully going to join us approximately 10 am. Before we begin, can remind those members using electronic devices to switch them to silent. For first item of business, today's decided whether to take item 3 in private. Are we all agreed? Thank you. A rhwng heading on the welfare of Dog's Scotland bill, I welcome to the meeting Jillian Martin. Minister for Energy and Environment and our officials, Andrew Voss, theądisy head of animal welfare and Stewart Forsythe, animal health and welfare policy adviser. I'm also welcome to the meeting Christine Graham, MSP as a member in charge of the bill. We have approximately 90 minutes scheduled for the session I welcome the opportunity to contribute to your evidence sessions on Christine Grahame's welfare of dogs Scotland bill. As we all know, animal welfare is not important but also a very emotive issue. The Government takes animal welfare very seriously and is committed to the highest possible welfare standards. We welcome Ms Grahame's effort in this area and support the general principles of her bill. We need to emphasise to people to act responsibly when deciding to buy or take a dog into their lives and to be responsible owners on the bill will help to do that. The low welfare puppy trade is unacceptable and an area that Scottish Government has been concerned about for many years. We have worked closely with stakeholders such as the SPCA and Dogs Trust to improve enforcement and understanding of welfare problems and the risks to buyers associated with criminal activity behind this trade. This has included marketing campaigns which were effective at raising awareness of the importance of seeing puppies with their mother before buying and many more. We know that the movement restrictions during the Covid pandemic meant that it is not possible for significant periods of time and there was an increased demand for puppies to be kept as family pets, as we know. It is therefore appropriate to consider again what more can be done to influence changes in behaviour of buyers so that they make the right choices when sourcing a pet. We look forward to hearing stakeholders' views as well as those of the committee and we will consider carefully your stage 1 report. We do have some issues with the framing of some parts of the bill, which we consider might benefit from amendment. We are very happy to discuss them with you and Ms Graham during the bill process, but I would hope that we are able to reach an agreement on those and other matters so that we can arrive at a bill at stage 3 that everyone can support and will have a tangible impact on dog welfare. I will kick off with the questions. We know that the Government agrees with the general principles of legislation and its attempt to increase public awareness. Surely that is something that can be done without a bill. It says basically that the only difference or the new powers in the bill that are created are in sections 24 of certain items that need to be included in the code. Do you really believe that there is a gap in what is already in place and what this new legislation might put? Is it not a sledgehammer to crack a nut? I guess that is really for the committee to decide whether that is the case in your question and Ms Graham. From our perspective—I will go back to what I said in my opening statement—there has been a real increase in the practices of those selling puppies who do not have their welfare at heart. It is becoming increasingly more difficult for people who want to source a puppy to know that they are getting a puppy that has been bred well and that they are not perpetuating some kind of trade that does not have animal welfare at heart. We have all heard the terrible stories. We have seen the documentaries about the illegal public trafficking trade and some of the ways in which they try to dupe families into taking their pups. We have seen all the heartbreaking stories. In my view, and I guess why we are supportive of the general principles, is the anything that has improved code of practice, which is bringing up to date some of the issues that I have just mentioned and some of the advice that can be given to people. A campaign centred on that would be very helpful. Is it a sledgehammer to crack a nut? I alluded to in my opening statement that there are some areas in which we think that there are parts that need amending, and we can come on to them later. Whether it requires a bill or not is for the person who is putting forward the bill to say that that is the case, but we are supporting Christine Grahame with the general aims of the bill. I want to address your question about gaps. I think that there are gaps that a new code of practice can usefully fit the awareness of some of the health issues with particular breeds. There are breeds of dogs that go into fashion, as we all know, and some of those have congenital issues that mean that their life is shortened or that they have health issues throughout their whole lives. I think that one of the things that we need to have an awareness of is that some of the finished-bill dogs come to mind that have issues with breathing. There are other dogs that are prone to heart conditions. There are other dogs that are prone to joint conditions. There has to be an awareness of the potential costs to a buyer of the maintenance of breeds that would have health issues. That is one of the gaps that could be filled as well. Focusing on that buyer's knowledge and highlighting the best practice on how to source a puppy that is going to live a long, happy life is something that is a gap that could be filled. I still think that it is a bit bizarre. I think that everybody in the general public, not just this committee, would welcome anything that increased the public awareness of the rights and wrongs around buying a puppy. From what you say, it sounds like the only areas where there might be gaps are lacking in the current code of practice. However, you have legislation in place, which already gives you powers to change that code of practice. The majority of the other items in the bill do not force the Government to do anything. Apart from the legislation that you are against, I am still worried that we are about to put through a bill where the concerns that you have raised, you have the powers right now to address without additional piece of legislation. That is a fair point. Of course we could amend the existing code of practice. I would not require any legislation. I have heard expressed by animal welfare organisations in front of your committee and outwith that they would not want two codes of practice. I can see their point and I have some sympathy with that. At the same time, Ms Grahame's bill could give an additional spotlight to those issues. That is something that those organisations have also said. Those advice for adopting or buying dogs would be helpful in getting those messages across to the public. Having particular focus on that in a parliamentary bill would provide that spotlight. Dog purchase has been able to buy with the confidence. One thing that I have not mentioned is about the issues around adopting dogs from other countries and some of the good guidance around that as well as something that maybe is not in the code of practice currently. It is up to the committee to decide whether the legislation is required or not, but my view is that a bill could put that spotlight on it. A question of whether the Parliament's time is putting forward or dealing with a bill and putting legislation is the best way to highlight a spotlight, whether there is other way to do that. I do not think that that is the reason for having bills. However, I will now move on to questions from Alasdor Allan. You have identified and the convener has identified probably some of the need for education more generally around buying and selling a dog. What does the Scottish Government do at present to promote that education and how do you see those activities relating to this code of practice proposed on this bill? I can go through some of the things that we are already doing. For some time, obviously, we have had campaigns and we have been working with other agencies on campaigns, particularly the one where we highlighted the need for prospective buyers to see pups with their mother. Where is the mum? I think that was the tagline on that. There is other work that the Scottish Government is doing in partnership with the UK Government, with border agencies. I will run through some of those things. We have been part of a puppy trade working group, led by the SPCA. That has encouraged the sharing of intelligence between enforcement agencies across the UK about illegal breeding and important trade of puppies. We have HMRC, which is part of that group, and we have been able to reclaim significant amounts of tax and some undeclared income from puppy breeders and dealers. That has also been able to identify some of the people who need it. This is a very lucrative business. An organised crime is involved. It is the sort of people that are involved in other lucrative criminal enterprise. The product here is puppies. A lot of those puppies, as we know, have heard heartbreaking stories about the fact that they do not live very long and families are absolutely devastated and there is no recourse at all. We do not know where those puppies come from. The buyers do not even know where those puppies were. We are even bread. All of that, in conjunction with SPCA campaigns that we have been involved in jointly, members will know that a lot of those campaigns come to the Parliament every year. We have particular campaigns around Christmas time to highlight the fact that maybe that whole idea of buying a puppy at Christmas is not the best idea. I suppose to shine in the light also on the adopt don't shop aspect of things as well, which we work with the SSPCA. As we have seen during Covid, a lot of people took on puppies. Once the lockdown times were over, we realised that the lifestyle that they went back to after Covid was not in line with caring for a dog. The shelters at the moment are absolutely chock full of dogs needing homes. Never mind anything else. That is the kind of places that we have concentrated on, but, as I said, Christine Graham's bill wants to shine a light on some of the other areas of advice and campaigning that could reasonably help people to make informed choices about buying a puppy. States that a separate code of practice for those about to buy a dog rather than on ownership itself would complement the existing code of practice as they cover two different areas of dog ownership, namely acquiring a dog and owning a dog. Is the Scottish Government supportive of producing guidance on responsibly acquiring, buying and selling a dog? Yes, we absolutely are. I have alluded to certain areas where I think that there could usefully be more updated advice. I think that particularly on the health issues that are associated with some breeds. That is something that the Kennel Club has been lobby in both UK and Scottish Governments about highlighting some of the health issues that are associated with dogs that are particularly fashionable at the time and are on Instagram. Influencers have them, et cetera, et cetera. We may smile, but they are influencers for a reason. People may rush in to buying a dog and then find out a year down the line that that dog is seriously ill or has issues that they are having to pay an absolute fortune for month on month for medication to keep them healthy. They have not factored that in to their household income. One of the things about the Code of Practice that is outlined in Ms Graham's bill is that there were some areas that we would like to see amended. It is quite prescriptive at the moment. I believe that when you have a code of practice for anything associated with the legislation that should be done by consultation once the bill is passed, you might be getting views on what should be in that code of practice from a large range of stakeholders. What I would not want to do is have a prescriptive code of practice in the bill that ties us in primary legislation to having a definitive code of practice when there might be other areas that could usefully go into that code of practice. Thanks for that. You mentioned the Kennel Club. We have in our papers the 2021-22-23 surveys. The situation is bad and it seems to stay the same. I would be interested to know a couple of things. One, given the rising problem of puppies or the continuing problem, why haven't ministers brought forward a code using powers under the 2006 act already? That is one part. The other piece is around the amendments. I understand the general practice of trying not to put things into legislation because there is a need for flexibility or consultation, but I would imagine that Christine Graham had consulted on the elements that need to be in there. It seems to me that, in this case, if there were not going to be the specifics that she is asking for to be in the bill, what makes it special and why, again, it is connected to my initial part of the question, which is why haven't ministers brought forward something already? I am not entirely sure if I can answer why ministers haven't. I have had this responsibility for animal welfare since June. Obviously, Ms Graham's bill was well under way by that point. There are a lot of members who raise issues around dog ownership. I know that there are other bills and there are petitions coming in, etc. We have really just been concentrating on the campaigns that I have mentioned, of the back of our partnership work with organisations. We help to promote campaigns, fund campaigns, and we have the rolling work that we do highlighting the issues around dog ownership, which we think have been reasonably successful in raising public awareness. However, revising the code of practice has not been done. It has been there since 2009. I think that it is off the back of a 2006 piece of legislation, but it has not been enacted in 2009. I agree that it is time for a refresh, and it is possible that Ms Graham has not brought forward the bill that we might have been looking at doing that. I am going to do the question to death, because it has already been done twice from my colleagues. The stakeholders said that the 2006 code needed to be updated, and it needs revise. That was the feedback that we got. They also suggested that the solution—this was the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission—said that the solution is for Scottish Ministers to introduce a revise code under the combined authority of the 2006 act. There were some considerable evidence that Scottish Ministers should consider that. One of the areas that we talked about was considering that those mechanisms are already in place. What are your views in general? Obviously, the committee needs to come to a conclusion on Ms Graham's bill. What are your views on using those mechanisms and expanding on some of the questions that have already been asked and reflecting on the evidence that people have given? I am not sure what I can usefully add. I appreciate that Ms Hamilton wants to hammer home the other things that have been mentioned. I am not entirely sure what I can usefully add that I have not said already around this. It is right to say that the code of practice does exist—the powers to amend that code of practice does exist—as relates to the 2006 act. I know that a few people around this table have done members' bills in the past. I am certain that it was one of them when I was at a backbencher. It can raise awareness for issues and it can have a campaign associated with it. It can, again, shine a light on some of the issues that a member feels is lacking or society at large feels is lacking in terms of awareness. I applaud members that they do that. That is one such case. We consider and come to the recommendation that we believe that the 2006 code of practice could be revised or updated. What happens after the Scottish ministers respond in a more detailed fashion? At the moment, I do not feel that the committee is able to make a decision on understanding why we need another code of practice. The 2006 code provides a higher level of parliamentary scrutiny because, if it was revised, it would have to come back to the Parliament for consideration. However, Ms Grahame would not. Can you enlighten us or even possibly commit to writing to us as to what might be the consideration at the stage where there was an either-or recommendation from the committee to revise that 2006 code? I would respond to any recommendation that the committee makes to me. I think that that is a general professional response. Anything in which the committee makes a recommendation, whether it takes the form of a letter, whether it takes the form of a stage 1 report, any communication from the convener with a recommendation would get a response from me. I am not trying to be cheeky. What I am trying to do is trying to establish in my own mind how we understand the process of it. It is ultimately up to you whether you decide whether the 2006 code of practice could be revised or updated or amended to reflect a new content that some of the stakeholders are asking for. What is in front of us right now is Ms Grahame's bill, which intends to have a new code of practice. I guess that it is up to the committee to decide whether or not they get behind Ms Grahame's ideas in having a new code of practice with the things that are outlined in her draft bill, or amendments to what is outlined in her draft bill, or whether you decide or not to take a different view on the revision of an existing code of practice, and that is in the committee's gift to make that recommendation. Just to be clear, convener, you, as the minister in charge of this, believe that the 2006 content could be updated, amended or revised? It is not a belief, it is a statement of fact. It could be. And it needs to be. I think that there are a number of areas in dog welfare and the sale of puppies to the public that could be done with being in a code of practice. Yes, absolutely. Just to be clear, given your concerns around the gaps in the code of practice that you have clearly stated in response to Alison Allan and Rachel Hamilton there, does that give us a commitment that, if the committee decides not to recommend that the Christine Grahame's bill goes forward or Parliament does not vote at stage one, does that commitment to address the gaps that you have clearly laid out in the current code of practice? To be honest, convener, if I can use the words of Ms Hamilton to be a bit cheeky, what's in front of us is Ms Grahame's bill. Ms Grahame is present in the room wanting to see her bill go forward, and effectively what you're asking me is to say, well, we do everything that Ms Grahame is wanting to do in her bill anyway without any need for this bill, and I don't think that's a particularly fair question. It might be a fair question for you to deliver in private, but what you're asking me to do—we've set out our support of the general principles of estate, but we've also, and I will continue during this session today, if I've asked, outlined areas where we think the bill could usefully be amended. I have the utmost respect for any member who brings forward a member's bill, absolutely, and I take my hat off to Christine Grahame and her attempts successful and otherwise on bills that she's brought forward over her time in this place. However, we've also, as a committee, got to recognise resource capacity and the ability for the community in prioritisation. Given that your statement and the Government's view on this bill is that you actually have the powers already to address almost everything that Ms Grahame's bill is going to do, I just get the feeling that you see this as a public awareness exercise that you can already do under the existing powers. That's where our concern comes for. That's not about disrespecting Ms Grahame's bill. It's a means to an end. By asking me to commit to something outwith the confines of this bill, I'd rather concentrate on a review on the bill as laid and the potential amendments that we might want to see. However, I still think that the question stands. If the bill wasn't to progress, given your comments about the concerns and the gaps in the existing code of practice, will you commit to addressing those gaps through the powers that you already have? I'll commit to improving dog welfare wherever I can. Okay, thank you. A question from another question from Alistair Allan. Thank you, convener. What view would you take on the fact that the bill sets out a code of conduct section 24 of the bill on the face of the bill? What would it involve, if at some future stage, if we were dealing with new breeds of dogs and new problems, what would it involve to amend that as it stands? Dr Allan, you have hit upon, I think, my issue with the prescription of what should be in that code of practice, and that's where I think that we would like to see amendments made to that. If you are too prescriptive about what is in a code of practice in the face of a bill, as you know, then you need secondary legislation to amend it as things change and go forward. I think that I have said in my responses to other members as well that things do change, trends change in dog ownership, different breeding standards change, different types of dogs come on the market with different issues, and we see that all the time. The people that are involved in the less than professional aspect of puppy breeding are clever and are able to do things to avoid detection. They are fleet of foot in any kind of aspect of duping the public into thinking that they are responsible breeders. As such, revisions of codes, notwithstanding the fact that we have not revised the 2009 one, that's an issue for us to discuss, but having a prescriptive code of practice identified in the face of the bill will make it harder to change because it would have to go through Parliament a secondary legislation. This is a pressure that I am sure all ministers come under, particularly at stage 3 of legislation and so on, to put all sorts of things on the face of the bill, and that phrase is thrown around. Is what you are saying that putting everything on the face of the bill with regards to the code of conduct would not be helpful in the Government's view? I don't think that it would be helpful. I don't believe in general that it's helpful to do that, because it means that there's not the flexibility to adapt to a change in circumstance of any type. You mentioned in your opening statement that the Government had identified some areas where it might seek to amend the bill, and your memorandum, I believe, specifies that. I wonder if we could impact that a little bit more in terms of specific amendments that the Government would work with Christine Grahame on in terms of tweaks to part 1 in particular. I'm probably going to repeat myself here, because the issues with part 1 are around the wording of any code of practice. At the moment, I feel that some of the wording makes it look directly rather than advisory. I don't think that it would require too much to make that clearer. I think that that, without putting words into Ms Grahame's mouth, I think that the intention behind Ms Grahame's bill in part 1 is for it to be advisory rather than directory. She has stated in her policy memorandum that she wants to achieve behavioural change without placing formal obligations on the parties involved. That's the quote that I've got in front of me. I think that there are some amendments on the wording that are required to make that clear. I've already mentioned to other members about the prescriptive content in the code of practice being in the face of the bill. I never feel that that's particularly helpful. I think that the convener mentioned about parliamentary time, that when things are in the face of the bill and circumstances change, that takes up parliamentary time. I think that we really need to have on the face of the bill something that wouldn't require adaptation necessarily but would have that flexibility built in a code of practice for X, but that code of practice could be something that could be added to and changed to over time. In summary, those are relatively minor. There is another aspect about the code of practice being ready within six months of royal assent. Given what I've said about the code of practice not being prescriptive in the wording of the bill, I think that the most useful course of action when a bill is passed that requires a code of practice is that it goes out for consultation again once the legislation is passed. I don't believe that six months is enough time for that to be achieved. If it has to be the sort of bill and have the sort of impact that Miss Graham wants—and Miss Graham is somebody who cares very much for the welfare of animals, we all know that—is that the best thing to do is to have a consultation that means that this code of practice can be the best that it can be. We require more than six months to do that. What is your understanding of the definition of a pet? A pet? An animal that you have in your domestic house that you actually asked to be there, and that you have as an extended family member, I suppose, would be? Okay, so what's your views on this bill only covering pets and not other dogs potentially? So is the convener asking what my view is on it not being applicable to working dogs that you would have living out with the home and that the person would not class as a pet? Yeah, or greyhounds in some definitions of how some people would review greyhounds. Yeah, that's actually something that maybe should be explored. My impression was that it relates about the purchasing of all puppies, your purchasing puppies, regardless of whether or not they're going to be a pet or whether they're necessarily going to be in your home. My understanding is that Miss Graham's bill is about the decisions around the purchasing of a puppy or a dog in general. It currently excludes working dogs. Right, okay. Is that something you agree with or should working dogs be included in this? Do you know what? I think I need to give that some more thought because that's something that I haven't really appreciated. Okay, thanks. Jim Fairlie. Thanks, camera. Good morning, minister. We've had various engagement sessions with stakeholders and they've suggested that public awareness of the existing code of practice is low. So I would the Scottish Government intend to effectively raise awareness of any new guidance required under the bill. So yeah, I've heard that evidence that the awareness of the code of practice is low. I imagine that awareness of quite a lot of code of practices that have been as a result of legislation by the general public is low. We haven't gone to a government website. It's what happens off the back of that code of practice, the campaigns that happen off the back of those code of practices that I've alluded to. So, whilst you might not have a lot of people logging on to look at the 2009 drafted code of practice, you will have the awareness that has emanated from that as a result of the sort of public campaigns that I've mentioned already. The Scottish Government working with SSPCA, the Where's the Mum campaign, the yearly campaigns that we are very aware of around about Christmas time around buying a puppy, the adult don't shop campaigns as well. So they sort of like emanate from that code of practice. So I think in a way, yeah okay, I understand people's awareness of that code of practice as it is written and the letter of it is probably not high because let's face it. We're talking about the general public who don't spend their time on government websites. But there is an awareness out there very much so about seeing puppies with their mother, looking to adopt adult dogs rather than the puppy, what you need to consider ahead of taking a dog into your home and to fit in with your lifestyle. There's more awareness coming out from, as I say, about the health conditions associated with dogs as well. So that is happening in a more general sense as a part of campaigning that probably stemmed from that code of practice. I have seen the only campaign that I can actually remember of the August for Life, not just for Christmas. It's the only one that sticks maybe. That's just goes to show you how effective that was then. It shows you how old I am as well. I wasn't going to say that. But the financial memorandum gives an initial public raising awareness campaign fund of between £200,000 and £250,000. What's your view on that figure for the purpose of raising the campaign? Yeah, the financial memorandum associated with the campaigns I don't have any concerns about. I think that it's fairly realistic and in line with similar campaigns. Can you tell us what the budget is for animal welfare regarding dogs from the Scottish Government at the moment? I don't have that information. I don't know whether any of my officials have. We can certainly write back to you. I don't have that in front of you. Yeah, that would certainly help because the recurring theme is public awareness. It's an amazing question but I don't have that information. You've mentioned where's the mum, not just for Christmas and so on. It would be quite good to find out exactly what the Government's contribution to those public awareness schemes was, so that if you could get back to us now that would be helpful. Rachael Hamilton. That's a supplementary on Jim Fairlie's question. From what you were saying about the public awareness, it must raise concerns in your mind about the code of conduct of the 2006 act in terms of the public awareness of that and how effective that is, and then creating another code on top of that. Will that just have the same outcome? Failure to comply with the code is not a fence in itself, and therefore where is the carrot here? Is this code just another duplication that is for show? I think the carrot, as you put it, is families and people who are buying dogs having good advice and knowing that when they buy a puppy from somewhere that they follow the best practice and that they can have comfort that they have not perpetrated anything in the various trade, or they're not buying a potentially ill puppy that is devastating when that puppy becomes ill. That is the carrot there. The carrot, I suppose, as well, from Ms Graham's point of view—again, I don't want to put words in her mouth—is that people who are selling puppies, who conform to that code, have almost a quality assurance associated with what they're doing? How much intervention do the Scottish ministers have on understanding, or is it provided by Ms Graham? I can't ask her directly, but the actual cost of the staffing for the public awareness campaign is really a question for Ms Graham. She has come up with those figures, but we have looked at those figures and they seem in line with other types of campaigns of that sort. I imagine that the 200,000 or 250,000—I forget the exact figure—takes into a campaign pretty much as the staffing associated with the materials that go with it. Particularly now, when you're talking about materials that are probably digital, it is mainly a staffing and a creative cost. Thanks, convener. I just wanted to come back on the area of questions around the prescriptive nature of the code. What Christine Graham has put is section 2-4. That all seems to me to be barely generic in a way, or I can't imagine that there would be a problem with those, because you would want to ask those questions or have that kind of situation. Maybe the certificate might be something section 4, but that might be something that would want to change. It seems to me that what she's laid out here is section 2-4 would be required, but section 5 provides ministers that they may revise the code from time to time so long as it continues to give effect to the sections 2-4, so she wants to ensure that those ones always have a lasting life. They seem to me fairly generic or fundamental in a code. I hear you saying that they're a bit prescriptive, but you also pointed to the six-month period and the desire to go out to consultation again. I would be interested to hear if the change of the six months to a longer time, and maybe you could indicate what that would be, whether we'd be open to that amendment. Certainly open to an amendment that could effectively double that time. I'll come back to some of the other things. I think that it's said in response to Ms Forbes about we would support amendments that clarify that provisions of section 2-4 would form part of the code of practice are advisory in nature rather than directly. I think that's where our issues really do lie. That's really helpful. Can I bring in Christine Grahame now for questions? Thank you very much, convener, and I promise I won't give evidence, so it's terribly tempting. I shall have my day. Can I just challenge the minister on one or two things while he knew I would do it? You say that the existing codes are functioning. How come, then, that so many people are still buying online? Puppy factory farms are still very successful if the codes of practice are effective? Because of everything that I have said about the practices of the people that are perpetrating the less-than-optimum circumstances for puppy breeding. Those are very clever people. Ms Grahame, I worry that some aspects of the bill have great intentions about what they might achieve. I don't necessarily think that a code of practice is the only tool in the box that is going to deal with that trade. I have mentioned some of the work that has been done between the Scottish Government and other agencies as part of the group that has been set up, working with HMRC, working with Border Force, working with other Administrations on the particular organisations that are involved in the practices. I don't think that a code of practice is ever going to solve that. However, what I agree with you on your bill is that we need a new set of guidance that enhances and improves the awareness that people have about some of the practices that are happening now. Some of the things that you should be taking into account when they are looking to buy or adopt a dog or a puppy, and anything in that regard is going to be helpful. Is it going to solve the terrible situation that we see, particularly puppies coming in from Eastern Europe and Ireland, which are effectively farmed in massive sheds such as some kind of conveyor belt type factory? That is something that is going to require working between Administrations, working with Border Forces and, as I say, working with HMRC in identifying individuals that are making money from puppies and that are involved in organised crime. That is a lot bigger than what you are proposing in your bill. Would you accept that my intention in this bill is to try to tackle the very supply that you have named by educating demands? That is what this bill is about, when you look at things like section 2, that if we can educate people, then by doing that we will at least have a better go at preventing the misery that some puppies go through than trying to do it when we get at the other end of it and try to catch them. That is why I am supportive, very supportive of part 1 of the bill, because that is about the education. I am going on to the fact that there is an existing code of practice. Would you accept, part of the fact that I would dispute that people pay much attention to it, but that it does not deal, as my code of practice does, specifically with considering all the issues that I raised here prior to acquiring a dog, not once you have got it, but before you even get there so that you might not get one at all? That is the reason why I am supportive of the general principles of your bill, because that is absolutely what is required, is about the advice and enhanced advice that could be given to people well ahead of having a puppy or a dog in their homes. Would you accept that to put something, the code of practice is not primary legislation, but by putting this in primary legislation, you can bed in the public conscience that this is, to put it in common parlance, the law, whereas it does not see the code of practice as the law. I think that we need to have a discussion about the wording of what is around the bill and the code of practice to address some of the concerns about advisory and directory. I get the wider point and I think that I probably said something fairly similar to what you have just said, is that by having something in a bill like this, it does have that heft behind it? Just two more and I am trying to be very, very pointed about them. Minister, you are fair to, I think it is section 2 and section 2 subsection 2 has been prescriptive. If I can refer to section 2 subsection 2A, because you went on about different breeds of dogs and I understand all about the breeds and how difficult it is when they are bred in certain ways, I do not think that it is prescriptive if I read it, it says, is the breed of dogs suitable for you? That is very broad. That takes into account any changes in breeding that takes place along the line. So that if we have breeds that come along that again are to use a term perhaps, that is controversial quotes, deform quotes, have difficulties in breeding or walking or whatever, because it is fashionable, that is contained in there. Is that breed of dog suitable for you? Because it also goes on to say, recognise that some breeds require more space, exercise and care than others. What I would ask you is, does that encapsulate your concerns that people should consider, which you raised about, I cannot ever say the word about the bulldog breeds and the stabgers or the difficulty in breeding, that they have to consider all that before they take on that breed? You see, I think that is very broad, I think that builds into the future and I am just contesting your evidence. I believe that there are tweaks that are required to that part of the bill that would give real flexibility in the code of practice for unforeseen developments in this area and I am not entirely sure why Miss Graham would not want that. I am just very briefly, because this is my only chance, regarding, nobody has mentioned the certificate which is section 4, the little certificate that is put in and would the minister accept that by putting this simple thing in, it is a confirmation that both the person transferring the animal and the person acquiring it have read and understood their commitments that lie ahead. Helpful, and I think that I would actually focus the minds, and it is almost a psychological thing. If you have actually signed something, you have got a certificate that you have actually had to think through some of the aspects of that, I think that that is something that would prompt reflection, and I am in agreement with that. I think that people should be doing that already. People should be doing that very much already. It is a commitment of up to about 15 years that people are making. It is a living being that they are having in their house that requires expense and attention and makes a massive difference to your everyday life. I think that it almost acts as a checklist. I agree with that. No question, convener. Thank you for your tolerance. Has the minister seen my response to the delegated powers committee regarding the code of practice and any revisions to it? I probably have that in all the briefings that I went through in the last couple of days, Ms Graham. Am I going to get tested on it? I do not advise the minister, but can I advise you that I have agreed with the DPLR that it can come from parliamentary scrutiny. They wanted it to come, the code of practice, if this goes through, plus anything else to go before parliamentary scrutiny. Just to clarify, I appreciate the minister. I do not know if the committee has seen that. Well, it is a shame that you have not got it either, because that has already been resolved. I have no further question. I have lots more, but I am taking up a lot of time. Thank you, Ms Graham. I understand that the DPLR has not reported yet, so we have yet to see that. Just before moving on from the code of practice, we talked about the bill as a method of raising awareness. We could say that the bill has been a means to an end, and it has resulted in this committee considering something that we probably would not have scheduled otherwise, so it has already achieved something. What it does highlight is that there is a code of practice there. I think that, as a minister, as a committee, we have heard you to account over that, that there is gaps in the code of practice. Given that the welfare of dogs is your responsibility, why do not you just get out there and change the code of conduct? Then we can all go home happy that the ultimate aim of Christine's bill has been achieved. That could be your recommendation. If the committee will have to discuss how they view Ms Graham's bill and put all those questions to Ms Graham when she comes before you, you will be reporting on stage 1, having a debate on stage 1, and that could be the committee's view. That could be one of the solutions. You know how those things work, Mr Carson. You have been doing it long enough. We are going to now move on to register of unlicensed letters. I have a question from Beatrice Wishart. Given that organisations such as the Dogs Trust and the Battersea Cats and Dogs Home agree with the idea of registering letters from breeders below the current licensing threshold, I wonder if you could explain why the Scottish Government disagrees with the need for this. There are a couple of things. In 2021, we made changes to that. I have to give credit to Christine Graham for prompting that. Initially, Ms Graham was looking at doing work around the welfare of dogs. There were changes proposed about three and up per year letters being classed as needing to be licensed and registered. I think that that was a really good move. I think that that really has made a difference in the whole regime around this. My issues with having families and individuals who are usually a pet dog would have a letter, one letter or another dog would have a second letter. That, necessarily, to me is not a breeding business. That is a family for whether a dog has had a letter. I do not think that they can be classed the same as people who are businesses. I think that my main issue here is that local authorities already have responsibility for licensed breeders. That is the breeding of three letters and above. To add a register for unlicensed breeders, I think that we would add too much of a burden. I am not convinced really what it would achieve in terms of animal welfare. There are also responsible individuals in this situation where they have a letter will apply. The indispensable ones will not. How do local authorities enforce that? What would be the personnel power in having that? An unquantifiable amount of people at the moment? How would they be identified? How could they be quantified? We are talking about, again, probably a domestic situation. All of a sudden, people may be fined—I think that Adam made a very good point, if I may, in one of the sessions. Mistakes happen, not to put too fine a point of it. All of a sudden, you find that your unneutered female dog is having puppies at four in the morning in your kitchen. All of a sudden, you might not have the wherewithal or the time to—all of a sudden, you have to be licensed as some kind of dog breeder on it. I think that it is onerous, and I think that it is probably unmanagable from a local authority point of view at a time where local authorities are stretched and are finding it difficult to deal with providing the services that they already provide. The policy memorandum, to be fair to Ms Graham, recognised the enforcement burden that is on local authorities. There is also the cost of establishing and maintaining a register. There is the personnel associated with enforcing it. I just do not see how it is workable. That is my reason for my support of the general principles of the bill, particularly being around the education of the buyer, but the registration of the unlicensed breeders is not convinced that it is needed and that it will have an effect and that it is workable. My second question was about the local authority resources, but I think that you have answered that. I will leave it there. I appreciate that we are asking a lot of questions about a bill that is not your bill, but I would be keen to have your view on the efficacy of the registration scheme in terms of what you feel would be the cost associated with maintaining it and who would do the updating of the register? The updating of the register and everything to do with the register would fall to the local authorities, my understanding. I think that we have got estimates here of, let me see, about the setting up. The set-up is estimated to have been £20,000. Presumably that is for every local authority to set up a database and the maintenance of that being about £16,000 a year. However, I see that that has only been part of the cost because there is the enforcement aspect of people registering as well. There is another issue with that. I worry that being on a register would almost act as a false kind of kite mark for the puppies that you are. If I am on this register, it does not really have much in the way of responsibilities associated with it. It does not have any of the conditions that the licensed breeders have around inspection and animal welfare concerns. Going back to our concerns about the types of people and individuals and organisations that are involved in puppy trafficking, I worry that a register that has families that have a dog that has it, if it is a public register, it might be targeted by those people as being a front for potentially their operations as well. We have seen that before in the kind of puppies brought in from outside Scotland or outside the UK and given to air beam bees are rented and there is a bitch there that is not the mother of the puppies. People come thinking that it is a family home, it is not. I think that there is potentially—it is just a niggle that I have about this register acting as almost a potential kite mark type front that would add some kind of legitimacy to something that otherwise is not legitimate. That is a little worry that I have about this. I have a question that is in two parts. You might have touched on that already. Does the Scottish Government agree that there is a need for greater traceability to overseen the selling of puppies generally? There are a couple of things that I would say about that. Given the issues that we have described about the illegal puppy trafficking trade and everything, I think that there are a number of things that have been done both UK-wide and in Scotland around the traceability of puppies. You have to, by law, your dog has to be microchipped. That is the owner's responsibility to have that. There is the possibility that the database for microchipping could be adapted to have more than the information of the owner and the address of the owner. Initially it was about tracing lost pets, but now it is more about traceability. Could it have the breeder's information? What would that add necessarily? Again, those organisations can be very clever at circumventing those kinds of things. I would say that there are already multiple databases out there that dogs should have microchipped. There is a good awareness of that. Of course, when it comes to pedigree dogs, there is additional administration around them in terms of kennel club certificates. Anybody who has bought a pedigree dog or is responding to any kind of advert with a pedigree dog would be very silly indeed if they bought a dog without seeing kennel club registration. I think that there is a decent public awareness about that, but you are probably spending upwards of £1,000. You would be very silly if you came away with a puppy that was, say, a King Charles Spaniel and then you did not have the documentation associated with that to tell you that, if it was parents' where, it was grandparents' there, you know the kind of registration of that. That is already a traceability element. Of course, that is not all dogs. Not all dogs are kennel club registered and people will buy dogs that are not KC registered as well. Dog breeding itself is licensed under the animal welfare license of activities involving animals regulations 2021. I have mentioned about the three plus letters, meaning that you are effectively a breeding business that you have to register, you have to be licensed. I think that there is quite a lot of information there. The UK Government had, in fact, can I just bring this up because I do not want to get it wrong. The UK Government did have, it was the proposed UK kept animals bill and we gave, the Scottish Parliament actually gave consent to legislative consent in January 2022 and that was about the age limit of imported puppies. So I think it was proposing that you couldn't import puppies below a certain age. So that would have added to the traceability. Unfortunately, it was dropped, but I believe that it could come back as a private member's bill next year. I would welcome that and I would hope that the Parliament would give legislative consent again because that is another tool in the box. Part of the problem that Ms Greene's bill is trying to address is the importing of puppies from parts of the world that do not have the strict regulations that we have in this country, so I think that that would be a very welcome step, certainly in the traceability as well. That is really helpful because secondly, I was going to ask if there was anything in this bill that you feel would tackle the issues regarding traceability and oversight of the puppy trade, essentially. Is there things there already in the toolbox? There's a number of things. Is this bill going to solve the problem that we're all wrestling with? No. Would it increase public awareness of some of the good practice in making sure that you come away with a healthy puppy and that you are ready for dog ownership and that you are a responsible dog owner and that you are making a responsible choice? Yes, I think so. What's the Government's understanding of how the register would be publicly accessed and does that take us into the realms of data protection law? How would people view that data? Yes. If you give me a minute because I think that that's something that you've alluded to, data protection and whether it would be public, and what would be available for anybody to look at publicly on that register? I guess it's your question. You'll have the opportunity to put that to Ms Graham about how she sees that register functioning, but there will be certain things about what is there for the public, a person who wants to buy a puppy from somebody, what is there on that register for them to look at that is going to make them think, this is a responsible purchase that I'm making, this is a puppy that I know is going to have, it's welfare being looked after, this is a puppy that I can trust is not come from it, probably relatively little because what has actually been asked to be on this register probably names and addresses, but even in that names and addresses come back to my little niggle that I had about publicly available information of people who have been, could even only just have had one, their dogs just had one litter of being on a public register, I do worry that they could be targeted by people that want to offer them money to act as a front for their activities as well. That's the thing that I worry about me most. Thank you. So if the information wasn't publicly available to you, you can centre out that, how would it work? That's a good question, that's a good question. In part two of the bill, I'll be honest with you, we are not sold on part two of the bill, so what would a register of these unlicensed individuals, whose pet dogs have had a litter of puppies, what would it do for animal welfare? I'm not convinced. So it's an effect, you don't see how a register could work? I'm concerned about what it would actually achieve, we actually looked at this before my time and it was looked at and maybe Andrew can step in and help me here because obviously Andrew would have been involved in that. But the Scottish Government looked at this issue and actually decided that it would be disproportionately expensive for what it would achieve in terms of animal welfare concerns, but if I can bring in Andrew because he would have been involved in it. Yes, we had discussions with stakeholders when we were preparing for the licensing legislation that we introduced a few years ago and we did explore the options and one of the options was having a two-tier system where we'd have registration of people who had one or two litters and licensing of the people who had three or more. It became quite apparent there was a lot of confusion about the difference between registration, which simply requires someone to give their name, that might not be on a public register, it might just be a number where the local authority keep their details, in which case the public can't just see a number and so there's issues then about checking. There's confusion between that basic registration requirement and licensing, which comes with very stringent license conditions about how the accommodation should be constructed and how bitches should be looked after and restrictions on how they're bred and those come with inspections by local authority inspectors, periodic renewal of the license, so that's really quite a stringent protocol. So there's clearly room for confusion for the general public who wouldn't necessarily understand the difference between a very simple registration requirement and a much more substantial licensing requirement. As the Minister has explained, we had concerns about the proportionality and putting an enforcement burden on local authorities. There were comparisons made with the dog license, which was a general requirement, but was dropped in the 1980s, basically because it wasn't being enforced because it was such a low amount that the local authorities weren't enforcing it. So at the time we came to the opinion that registration, yeah, there are some potential advantages but overall we thought it wasn't a proportionate burden for local authorities and that's why we didn't take it forward to that licensing register. I was able to locate what I wanted to bring to this answer as well around the fraudulent and unlicensed readers. A register of this type, we don't think, would prevent puppies from being sourced from unlicensed readers. What could confuse or provide false assurance because there might be confusion with the licensed breeders who have all the conditions around their licence? If you've got a register of the house on the street, the one letter, just a domestic situation and they're on a register, there could be confusion in the public's minds that they're a licensed breeder because of the confusion between the two registers and what they mean. That's a concern. Okay, thank you. Jim's not going to ask this question. I've got a question in the back of that. Given the argument that you've had and the argument that Anna Vos has put forward, would you seek to remove that section from the bill, given that you can't see how it can work in practice, it's going to cause confusion? Would that be something you would, if the bill was to proceed to stage 2, would you look for amendment to remove that? I think so. Yes. Thank you. Certainly, Rachel Hamilton. As part of that, does that affect the bill where it says that an unlicensed operator could advertise? The part of the bill that says an unlicensed... Within the code of practice, what my understanding is, I just wish I could ask Christine Grahame this to clarify it. You might have to wait a couple of weeks. It's around that part would not be relevant, either. We saved that question up for Christine. I don't want to tell you what to do, Ms Hamilton, but it might have implications, but that's for you to decide. Of course, I've set out some of our reticence about the Registration part in part 2. The committee may take a different view. The reason I highlight that is because a lot of the problem surrounds unlicensed people advertising on Facebook, for example. There was an uptick in online sales in 2019, reflecting that. If that part was not taken forward, that part is included within it. Just to continue on that theme, Alasdair Allan has a question on the resources. The committee has had it put to them that enforcing the register would have resource implications. Again, I appreciate that this is not your bill, but what is your understanding of what those resources might be for enforcement, what is the cost benefit and how would enforcement of the bill relate to enforcement of any existing measures? I thought about this. This is one of the most difficult things to put a number on, because I think it would depend on the local authority. Do you think about the resource implications for Highlands and Islands, compared to Clack's Clack Manager? Smalls, geographical areas and less people. It is a personnel. What would it require in terms of personnel or an uplift in personnel if that was expanded to the unlicensed breeders that we are talking about? What boots on the ground would be required for your patch? What transport costs would be around that as well? I think that that is a difficult thing to quantify. You would probably get a different answer from every local authority that you asked around this, and some will be more. They might think that we need another full-time equivalent person in the animal welfare team. It could be less. It could be something that they could absorb. I think that you will get different answers. I do not have a definitive answer on that because of that. I have heard your concerns about the whole registration scheme, but we have heard from stakeholders that a system of regulation to cover all litters is welcome, but that it would have to sit alongside a user-friendly, easily accessible, centralised and transparent register of anyone breeding and selling dogs in order to be easily enforced. I have heard your concerns about names and addresses and things like that, but it is more about the centralised nature. That came up at our previous session where it is good to be able to cross-reference on a national basis. It is a question for the member that is bringing in for the bill on what poach he sees in terms of are you looking at 32 registers that feed into one central database? How would that work? How would they speak to one another? Obviously, you could be from one local authority area travelling to another. Of course, most people are. You are going to where the dog is that you want to purchase. You want to know that all these databases all speak to one another. It is a question for the member how she sees that working. I am now going to bring in Christine Grahame for questions on the registration scheme. Thank you, convener. That is very kind. Do you accept, minister, that I have actually, from the previous bill that was introduced but did not proceed really because of the pressures of Covid, that I have moved from a mandatory regulatory scheme to a discretionary chance for the Government to introduce it? Do you accept that I have done that and I think that it is explained in the explanatory notes because, with inflationary pressures at the moment in everything, I can understand that we do not want to burden either national or local government, but it is discretionary. I accept that. In part to your right, it is the form of almost a suggestion. The thing is, Mr Grahame, that we already have the powers to put a register in place as part of previous legislation. I absolutely agree with you that the wording of part 2 does not mean that a register would have to happen. You are just wanting the ability for it to happen, but hopefully I have outlined some of my concerns that you might want to address when you are giving evidence and you are taking the bill forward. If I just move on, because yes, I accept your register, but this particular bill tries to specify some things in that register. Again, if I take you to section 8, subsection 3, it is made by regulations make provision. Again, it is fairly flexible for government and leaves it into a context of where we are now. Can I ask, therefore, and I accept the issues of data protection? Obviously, I thought about all that. If I look at section 8, subsection 4G, which says, as part of it, provisioned for or in connection with public or other access to registration information, would the minister accept that the Government has far more resources at hand than I have to consider the legal requirements that would be for the register to give data protection cover, as it were, if I put it like that, to the transferer and the transferee? Potentially, Ms Raim, it is your bill and you have to answer questions around what information you would like to see in some kind of register. I come back to my question in relation to what Dr Allan asked me about. What would that register, the information usefully have that was public that would help in terms of the buyer knowing anything about those puppies or the home, the breeder? What would the registration of those individuals mean in terms of animal welfare and any comfort that a buyer could take from a register existing? If I raise a supplementary question, what would proceed that would have to be complying with the code that I am trying to put into primary registration about considering whether you have got the right breed, et cetera, et cetera, that all has to be done in advance. Can I then refer the minister to the policy mirror in my memorandum paragraph 80 accessing the register? Again, it says that the Scottish Minister will be able to make provision regarding public or other access to the register, and I won't just read the whole paragraph, but it's there. Further on, it says, it is envisaged that specific third parties such as animal welfare officers and animal welfare organisations might be given access to registered information in order for them to fulfil their enforcement role, so it's seen as almost two-tier. The position being, if I put the question to you, that if you get somebody that's pretending that there's just had an accident with their bitch and they've got a litter of puppies, if they saw a sequence of unregistered and numerous unlicensed litters, alerts would be put. Do you accept that it would be possible to have some limited information for the public, which protects people and understand that, but it would also be access to legitimate charitable organisations such as SSPC and Dogstaff and so on, Blue Cross, to another level of information to detect whether there's actually covert criminal activity? Of course I accept that. I accept it that any additional information could help join the dots for any organisation that's involved in the enforcement. The final thing I want to raise is, thank you very much for your tolerance, you're well known for it. How bloody contrary. It was interesting that the minister mentioned multiple providers of the microchipping information, it's a bug weight of mine for a long time. Can I ask why we're so long down the road and not actually, which has been promised before, having a Scottish register of microchips puppies to which we could also add registration in this case and to which we could also add owners that have been issued with dog control notices under the control of dogs act. It seems to me this is begging out for joining up as the minister's favourite phrase, the dots. So can I ask if the minister would pursue this with whichever way it's a minister for justice, whatever, having a central Scottish database? The information's out there, it's just not centralised. Because that is not in the bill as drafted, it's not something that I have necessarily an answer for. I'm very tolerant as Christine Grahame suggested. I did not have very high expectations of how timekeeping would go this morning but that is out with the realms of the bill and I don't think you need to answer that. The only reason I raised it, convener, is because the minister raised it. Feel free to respond minister. I'll finish my responses because that's not been put in the bill. I mean, if that had been something that had been put in the bill, we could have addressed that. Okay. That's maybe something we can still consider. Okay. I'm going to finally move on to the final section on enforcement. Question from Kate Forbes. Thanks very much. It's a fairly simple question. I don't know if my mic's on or not, but it is right. In terms of a question that I put to our stakeholders, on one hand, Governments and decision makers are always inclined to improve behaviour by regulating it further. One of the risks is always that you bring in more people, of course, to better regulation, but equally you push bad behaviour even more underground. If you are including greater costs at various points in the process, how do you ensure that you aren't just enforcing those who are reachable but you're actually targeting those who might be most inclined to engage in even worse practices in the darkness? That is a really key question because I think there's two things as I'm listening to your question. I'm thinking of that. On the one hand, quite a lot in this bill, the responsible people will sign up. How do you enforce finding the people that didn't? I don't know. Impossible. There's another aspect of this, though. If people think that there might be penalties associated with not registering on something, there is another unintended consequence of that. They might not seek veterinary assistance. Particularly if it is a household that has been caught out, as I said, they found themselves with a letter and they just want to move the letter on amongst the people that they know or advertise or whatever. However, they're worried that they expense around everything else that they might have to do. They can't afford it, so they might worry that, if they took the pubs to the vet for the check-up or whatever, they might get a phone call to the council saying that they're not registered or whatever. It's complex. We have to take into account that we're not talking about people necessarily that are breeding for an income. It's not a business that the two, the up-to-two letters, we're probably talking about families here that are once, twice in a lifetime experience that they're having with them. They've maybe wanted to just let their dog have a letter, something that you do for selling to people in your community, that you might know. Do you have to then have this onerous? I'll take away the word onerous, because Miss Graham is not suggesting anything onerous. What is it really achieving? And then there's the other thing that I keep on coming back to. Does being on a register give some kind of false legitimacy to the practice of the welfare issues around the pubs? That's a worry. The risk of giving evidence and not asking a question, the advantage of simplicity is that it attracts more people, but being overly simple might mean that people don't take it seriously with the registration system. I couldn't have put it better myself. Do you have any final questions? Just simply, back to compliance. Again, as we all know, this is very discretionary, it's not mandatory, section 10.1, the Scottish ministers may by regulations make provision for and connection with securing compliance, so I just put that. But the question here I have is who are worried about people who might end inadvertently being caught up in some proceedings or a fine or something. Section 102b says, as a recommendation, because it's up to the Government, that provision may in particular include provision for the enforcement other than by way of proceedings for an offence of any of the regulations. Would the minister accept it? It could just be a warning to somebody to say, Luke, you should have had this puppy registered. It would depend, but it also leaves it open if the minister would accept to somebody who's masquerading as just an innocent caught out to somebody who's actually been either used by criminal gangs or is part of a criminal gang. To me, would the minister accept that there is an option there other than by way of proceedings? As I say, the regulations leave the Government, so these are just sort of guidance to the Government. Yeah, I accept that. I just come back to our issues with part 2 about what it's actually going to achieve in terms of animal welfare. Honestly, the final question is section 11. How will we know how will this work? Would the minister accept that it's a public awareness and understanding of the relevant regulated regimes that would the minister accept that the purpose of this, and it says this, is to understand regulations under regulations made under section 8? So, within the context of the entire bill, the purpose would the minister accept is not to raise awareness before you acquire it, but if registrations proceed that public are aware that there is a registration scheme and that it would be for the public in a way to police it. If somebody's not registered, you check it out. I don't really know what to say to that. Do you expect, in the public, to lift up the phone and point to their neighbours that have had a litter of views? It depends on the database, but simply if there is not a registration number, Minister, I put it to you, they would not proceed because it would be a requirement in law that the puppy or dog was registered and they would say that it's not registered. What's this all about? Thank you. One final question. We understand that the Government supports the general principles of the bill, but other than education and public awareness, which we don't need legislation to do, what significant policy or legislation will this put in place if it goes through Parliament? Well, it depends on what shape or form it goes through Parliament because obviously there's two parts to the bill and everything that's outlined in the bill, if it goes through in its current form it would have a registration system for the unlicensed breeders and it would have that. Sorry to interrupt. In your opinion, what significant improvement would you welcome that this bill, if passed in its current form, would bring? A code of practice that is targeted and focused on the decisions and the buying and the advice given to people considering getting that puppy or dog. Okay, but that's something we've already got powers to do. Convener, that's a statement rather than a question. Absolutely. Thank you very much Minister and thank you for your colleagues today and the time you've taken. That's been very useful. That now concludes our business in public and we'll move into private session and suspend the meeting for 10 minutes for a comfort break.