Seòmar agus comataidhean

Will the member give way?

My amendments 1 to 3 add further weight to the importance of the certificate. The certificate needs to make clear to the person who is acquiring a dog the importance of the decision that they are taking and the responsibility that they are taking on.

Amendments 1 to 3, in combination with what is already in the bill, mean that the certificate needs to be kept by the person who is acquiring the dog for the whole period of ownership of the dog and be shown on request, for example to an animal welfare inspector or police officer.

A failure to produce a signed certificate can be evidential when someone is accused of animal welfare offences. The certificate must include a requirement on the acquirer to confirm that they understand why they should keep the certificate and the consequences if they cannot present it when asked to do so.

I seek assurances from the minister, during the debate that will follow these stage 3 proceedings, that the published certificate will first be short, so that people engage with it; secondly, be in plain English; and thirdly, leave an acquirer with a clear sense of the responsibility that they are signing up to in getting a dog, including by asking them to demonstrate that they fully understand all the responsibilities that are set out in the certificate.

None of that is meant to be punitive; it is meant to educate people prior to acquiring a puppy or dog.

I understand the intentions of Maurice Golden’s amendment 10. However, I submit that what is proposed is an unnecessary complication because the significance of the certificate will be clear. I have seen a draft of a certificate and I am not too unhappy about it. It makes plain the obligations of the acquirer and its status if requested by an appropriate agency, such as the SSPCA or the police—it is not for the general public—in the case of a possible animal welfare issue.

To ask the First Minister, in light of the inauguration of Donald Trump as US President, and the reported prospect of import tariffs, what sectors of Scottish business it anticipates may be most affected. (S6F-03735)

As Ross Greer knows, I cannot support his amendments 12, 13, 14, 17 and 18, but I thoroughly support the sentiment and motivation behind them. For more than a decade, I have campaigned for a ban on the use of shock collars. Before Ross Greer came to the Parliament, I held an event at which I encouraged MSPs to try a shock collar on their wrists. Few did, and some got really upset, because shock collars deliver different levels of pain and the reaction depends on the dog. Therefore, I will take no lessons from anyone in here—not a single person—about my commitment to a ban on shock collars. My call for a ban remains.

I thank everyone for speaking in the debate. However, as a legislator—not with my political hat on but as a legislator—I have to ask this: is what has been proposed the way to introduce a ban with a robust and enforceable legal framework, and has that been tested through our established parliamentary processes, as Edward Mountain said?

To say that I am hiding behind process is not correct . Process is essential—

Will the member give way?

It is a pity that I have only four minutes for my speech, so I cannot take interventions.

There is a proposal by Scottish Power Energy Networks for a string of pylons partly across my constituency. Although I support a move to more green and renewable energy, with much of it being generated in my local area—which, of course, means increased grid capacity—I cannot support the current proposed route, which would involve an invasive network of pylons cutting through the beautiful Borders landscape. There would not even be community benefit.

The proposal is not about keeping the lights on in Scotland. When SPEN made a presentation to Scottish Borders Council in December, it was clear that the line was being driven by UK Government energy targets and that minimal energy would be transmitted the other way, so the proposal is primarily about meeting energy demands in the south.

Legislation and regulations related to electricity networks are reserved, and the National Energy System Operator is responsible for a strategic approach to transmission investment. It is for the transmission owner—in this case, SPEN—to analyse the impact of a proposal and ensure that the views of local communities, for example, are considered. I emphasise that the Scottish Government has no role in that process apart from in relation to its statutory planning and consenting processes, which come into operation at the very end of the UK energy processes.

The fourth national planning framework—NPF4—influences all planning and consenting decisions to ensure that the sustainable expansion of our electricity networks protects our most valued natural assets and cultural heritage. Decisions are made on a case-by-case basis. Indeed, I have already raised my concerns about the potential disruption to the invaluable and successful South of Scotland Golden Eagle Project in the Tweed valley.

The irony is that the south of Scotland produces more than four times the electricity that it requires but does not benefit from any local electricity pricing. The proposed pylons will stream that electricity south, where, ironically, standing charges are cheaper—41.57p per day in London from January to April this year, but 64.16p per day in the south of Scotland.

We need energy to be devolved, which would bring energy and planning together. That would open the door to community benefits for communities that might be affected and to local energy pricing. The Conservatives will never agree to that—so be it. I say to Mr Lumsden that this debate has produced more heat than light.

Yes—I have sat down.

I am sorry, but the light is not coming on, despite me pressing the button. My request-to-speak button has come on, and I have not touched it.

Will the member take an intervention?