Seòmar agus comataidhean

I very much share the member’s annoyance that people cannot get through to a GP and can contact them only by phone, but does he accept that it is the private practice that is causing that and not the NHS at large?

I very much share the member’s annoyance that people cannot get through to a GP and can contact them only by phone, but does he accept that it is the private practice that is causing that and not the NHS at large?

Of course. The member has let me in so often that I have to.

Let me finish—the member has a summing-up speech.

I have listened to all this, and I will come to the point. Process is essential to robust legislation in order to deliver what we want in practical terms. First, in my view, the amendments fall down here, because, although I know that they have been ruled as competent, they are outwith the purpose of the bill. I have been getting slightly agitated, because the purpose of the bill relates to the acquisition of dogs. There is a separate code, which is 36 pages long, on the duties and obligations that a person has with regard to the welfare of a dog that they own. That is my first point.

Secondly, and more significantly, the amendments have been shoehorned in at stage 3, without a mention at stage 1 or amendments having been lodged at stage 2. I heard what Ross Greer said about the fact that he was waiting for things to come through and that that was why he was perhaps too late to lodge amendments at that point—I am paraphrasing. We need a belt-and-braces approach. He should have lodged his amendments in time.

The debate, which has become all about shock collars and has usurped the bill’s purpose of preventing the casual acquisition of puppies and dogs, has shown that there is a range of views in here. That very fact emphasises the need for proposals on a ban to go through the parliamentary process.

I will take the intervention in a while.

I say all that without it, for one minute, reducing my commitment to a ban on shock collars. Members can tell from the way that I speak how I feel and how angry I am that we have not done that.

I, too, refer to the recommendations of the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission on 11 April 2023. It said:

“Therefore, the Commission has concluded on the basis of the evidence considered during the course of our inquiry and in accordance with our remit to provide advice to Scottish Ministers on matters concerning the welfare of protected animals, that the use of e-collars for the training of animals in Scotland should be prohibited in Scotland.”

Hear, hear. I absolutely agree.

I come back to the fact that we have a pattern for this. As we know, Wales banned e-collars in 2010 through the Animal Welfare (Electronic Collars) (Wales) Regulations 2010. That is important, because it defined a “shock collar” and put in place criminal penalties for abusing the legislation, ranging from fines to imprisonment. That is what I call good legislation. I am appalled that we are so far behind, but that is the route that I want to go down.

I agree with Ross Greer. Okay, we might have to wait until some other report is published in April, but, at the end of the day, I want a commitment that there will be regulations in this parliamentary session—which will be my last—having gone through the parliamentary process, to ban the use of electronic shock collars in Scotland. We cannot ban their sale, because that involves the internal market. However, we should not do it in this bill, because that would be a bad way to make law.

At first, I was a wee bit discombobulated that a debate that should have focused on the acquisition of a puppy or a dog turned into a debate on shock collars. I request here and now that there be draft regulations proposing a ban, as was recommended by the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission almost two years ago. I request that those regulations be laid before a committee and be considered during the current parliamentary session. I suggest that members across the parties who agree with me that there should simply be a proper, thorough debate on actual regulations—whether or not they agree with a ban—get together and formally request that. I hope that that assuages the concerns of Ross Greer and anybody else who thinks that I am letting the matter go.

This is my last session in a Parliament of which I have been a member for almost 27 years.

No. I will press amendment 1. The dizziness was metaphorical. I have had concern shown for me in the chamber.

Will the member take an intervention? I hope that it is helpful.

I support Ross Greer, in that my understanding of parliamentary process tells me that bringing forward draft regulations to lay before a committee is a parliamentary process. All he is asking is for the Government to have a plan B and that if it will not give a commitment today it will at least commit to putting draft regulations before the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee so that evidence can be taken and we can have a proper vote on a proper piece of legislation.

As we know, the selection of amendments is a matter for the convener of a committee at stage 2 and for the Presiding Officer at stage 3. I am certainly not going to give advice on selection to either a convener or the Presiding Officer. That is my view.

I return to the issue. Members, please do not vote for these particular amendments, because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Please pursue the Government to get in place regulations that will be enforceable with specific penalties—including fines and imprisonment—and definitions, which is what anybody should do when making law.

However, I support amendment 16, which I discussed with Ross Greer, because I want to move the issue forward and I want pressure to be kept up on the Government. I encouraged Ross Greer to lodge a more general amendment, so that we can keep the heat up. My goodness, I am hot and bothered now.

Amendments 5 and 6, in the name of Maurice Golden, make it clear that the provision does not have to refer to a pure breed of dog; the acquirer can be accessing a type of dog. We had that big row over XL bullies, which I lost—that was, I am afraid, another piece of bad legislation that members voted for. I support those helpful and considered amendments and thank Maurice Golden for them.

I understand the purpose behind amendment 19, in the name of Ariane Burgess, and I welcome her highlighting the issue. However, I note that the existing code in relation to having a dog is 36 pages long—it is “War and Peace”—so I want this code to be simple and easy to follow, including by it asking only the basic questions. It has to be concise, engaging and people friendly. I do not consider the sourcing of a vet to be a central issue to include in its content.

I should say to Ariane Burgess that the issue is already raised in section 2(2)(e) of the bill, in which veterinary costs are among the things that we ask people to consider in advance of sale or transfer, so that they have a happy relationship. I hope that, having highlighted the issue, Ariane Burgess will not seek to move amendment 19.

I ask Ross Greer, as a fellow traveller, not to press or move the relevant amendments on a ban on shock collars.