Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am sorry, but I do not understand where you are going with that.

I have not considered the matter in relation to wildlife; I am considering it specifically in the case of the bill, which, as we have stated, represents guidance rather than something that we can enforce legally. The requirement to hold a certificate might give people the impression that there is a legal requirement to do so and that they could be prosecuted if they did not have it, which would be unfair to the people whom we are asking to fill out those certificates in the first place, because there is no legal penalty for not having the ability to produce it.

I have a quote from the committee, which said:

“The Committee also notes, however, Christine Grahame’s objective for the Bill to educate”—

she has clarified that—

“rather than penalise, those acquiring or selling/giving away a dog and agrees with the advisory status of the certificate.”

If amendments 45 and 46 are agreed to, failing to complete and hold a certificate may still be relevant in establishing liability, as set out in section 6, in relation to other provisions of the code of practice, and it could be taken into account by the relevant welfare enforcement authorities. In other words, if someone did not have a certificate, why they did not have one would be a question. Therefore, that gathers evidence for the—

That is from the 2010 code of practice, but we will have a separate entity, which is exactly what you, as the member, have brought forward.

I do not have the 2010 code in front of me but, if you are telling me that it does, I will accept that as your position. However, that does not alter the fact that, although we have a bill that you have brought forward and which we support, allowing people to believe that they have committed a criminal offence when they have not is not fair. I therefore think that the amendments should be agreed to.

We are not saying that we cannot achieve it.

That is not what I said. What I said is that, in the event that something happens such that we could not achieve it, we would want the flexibility of having 12 months.

I have nothing further to add.

Amendment 10 agreed to.

Amendment 11 moved—[Jim Fairlie].

The Scottish Government is keen to develop the code of practice that is required by the bill, and the initial engagement with stakeholders has already begun. Amendment 14 will ensure that any consultation that takes place before the bill comes into force will count towards meeting the consultation requirement contained in the bill, so that the code can be finalised as soon as possible.

Amendments 10 to 13 will introduce greater flexibility for preparation of the code. The Scottish Government’s view is that specifying in detail what the code should include is an unusual and unnecessary use of primary legislation. We prefer to develop the contents of the code through consultation with stakeholders.

Amendment 10 provides that the Scottish ministers must have regard to the matters set out in sections 2 and 3 when they make the code of practice, and amendments 11 and 12 change the requirement that the code must include provision giving effect to those matters to a provision that it may do so. The bill retains the requirement that the code of practice must prescribe the form of a certificate for both the acquirer and supplier of the dog to sign, in accordance with the stage 1 report’s recommendations.

Amendments 47 and 48 amend section 5 to clarify that the process for developing and consulting on future revisions of the code will be the same as for the initial code.

Amendment 55 means that the bill will come into force two months after the date of royal assent, rather than the day after royal assent, as is currently provided for.

Amendment 15 increases the timescale for producing the code of practice from six months to 12 months, in line with the recommendations in the stage 1 report. The committee agreed that the requirement for a code to be made within six months of royal assent is impractical and—given the value of a consultation to inform a code—is unlikely to result in a well-drafted code that is fit for purpose. More than six months is required to allow for consultation, the development of the code and the obtaining of views on further wording or recommendations from stakeholders.

It is expected that, in addition to the content that is specified in the bill, additional guidance on other matters relating to the acquiring of a dog—such as the risks that are associated with imported rescue dogs and extreme conformations due to undesirable breeding practices—could be included in the code following consultation with stakeholders.

Amendment 16 allows for the timescale within which the code of practice must take effect to be amended by way of regulations. That amendment has been proposed in order to avoid the difficulties that sometimes occur when timescales that are fixed in legislation subsequently become unachievable. Without that power, any amendment to the timescale could be achieved only by way of primary legislation.

I thank Rachael Hamilton for explaining the purpose of her amendments, but I cannot agree with them. It is the view of the Scottish Government, which was shared by the committee at stage 1, and of Christine Grahame, that a new, stand-alone, concise and accessible code of practice that relates specifically to the acquisition of dogs should be produced after due consultation. The intention is that the new code will complement the wider advice on keeping dogs in current and future iterations of the welfare of dogs code, and that there will be clear signposting between the codes to minimise any potential confusion.

Therefore, I do not support amendments 60, 63, 65, 66, 71, 73, 74 or 77, and I ask Rachael Hamilton not to press amendment 60 or to move the other amendments.