Seòmar agus comataidhean

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—

I, too, support these amendments from Maurice Golden—members will think that he and I are in cahoots—because they align with my policy intention in relation to microchipping and they complement the code and the certification process.

The amendments also provide me with the opportunity to set out my long-held support for microchipping and to make a plea for accelerated progress—I quite agree with Rhoda Grant on this—towards a UK-wide database, or databases that communicate with each other. We should keep up gentle pressure on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which can accelerate the process.

I do not know—I am just going to check.

All the debate about shock collars has made me a bit dizzy, but I will finish.

I move amendment 1.

I support Maurice Golden’s amendments, which make it clear that the consultation on the code should include—as rightly it should—representatives of buyers and sellers. I support and welcome that.

However, I make a plea to the Scottish Government that the code does not turn into what I call “War and Peace”, like the existing code for owners who already have dogs, but instead is short and, importantly, will be read. People are buying puppies and dogs on Gumtree, from puppy farms and sometimes out of the back of vans, so there is a scale and urgency to the issue, which is why I do not want the process to be overwhelmed by an extended consultation. It is urgent that the code is published, and that the certificate and code are in operation as quickly as possible. The bill has already been consulted on in depth with key stakeholders.

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?