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?

I congratulate my colleague Clare Adamson on securing the debate.

From Shetland to the Scottish Borders, not one part of Scotland voted leave—not one single council area. However, that is the union for you, and that is democracy for you: it is part of the “union bonus.”

Even in England, 53 per cent of voters voted leave and 47 per cent voted remain, so even south of the border the vote was nip and tuck. There was no 60 per cent requirement, as is sometimes called for when there is a vote that affects the unwritten British constitution. Remember that, when it comes to a referendum on Scottish independence.

We now know that the British public was sold a pup. In fact, they were sold several pups, including the side of a bus showing the “Boris bonus” of £350 million a week for the NHS; cutting of immigration, although the majority of migrants were and are legal migrants; cutting of red tape for businesses and farmers; no border down the Irish Sea; reclaiming our seas; and the world waiting eagerly for our trade. It was all “oven ready”.

How did that go? The £350 million was not so much “oven ready” as it was a Boris porky pie. Immigration, both legal and illegal, has increased since Brexit. Indeed, leaving the EU has made co-operation with EU countries more difficult. As for increases in red tape, just ask businesses, farmers and the horticultural sector. There are special rules for trade between Éire, which is still in the EU, and Northern Ireland, which remains in the EU in all but name. As for trade bonuses, there are none.

The NFU Scotland overwhelmingly backed a remain vote because it knew what was coming if we left. The Confederation of British Industry was one of the most vocal opponents of Brexit, and stated that it would

“dent the economy and knock living standards.”

Then again, what do they know? Billions of pounds have been lost to the UK economy to date.

The loss of free movement in the workforce had immediate impacts on the NHS, the care sector, horticulture and hospitality—just for starters—all of which have affected my constituency.

What got the Brexit vote through by the skin of its teeth were allegations about damaging immigration. As for Boris Johnson’s yellow brick road, we know what Dorothy found at the end of that: a wee man masquerading as a great wizard. Boris Johnson, Donald Trump or Nigel Farage? Take your pick.

Some who were once forceful and vocal defenders of the EU now say that that ship has sailed. To continue the metaphor, I point out that a ship can change course, especially if the sea is stormy and you can see that rocks lie ahead.

Of course, the UK will not change course, but Scotland can do so as an independent nation. Let us have no nonsense about it taking decades to rejoin, or—worse—that we would not be welcome. Our laws are aligned with the EU. We are a rich nation that produces energy, food and drink. Our history with Europe differs from that of England. My goodness—the first language of Mary, Queen of Scots was French. That fact is handy for pub quizzes. However, I digress.

In the dismal years of “Trumpland” ahead, we need an EU that is both politically and economically strong, and we need not to be consigned to watch in painful embarrassment as the UK Prime Minister genuflects to Trump out of desperation to avoid tariffs. Indeed, “embarrassment” is not a strong enough word—it is more of a public humiliation.

We can change course. Scotland would and will rejoin the EU with those 27 other nations. Believe you me—rejoining the EU cannot come soon enough.

I, too, offer my condolences and thank all the emergency services.

Storm damage has left many people in need of urgent repairs, in many cases to roofing. I have no doubt that most roofers are decent, but there are unscrupulous opportunists who will prey on the elderly, especially those living alone, which is something that I experienced this weekend as an elderly person who lives alone. Thankfully, I saw through someone whom I consider to have been, at best, not trustworthy. Will the cabinet secretary take the opportunity to alert all who might be vulnerable and desperate for repairs but who do not already know a tradesman, and to advise them to be wary and, if possible, check with friends and neighbours before they part with any cash?

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—

At the risk of turning this into a love-in, I say yes to that. I hope that the member and everyone else in the chamber considers what I said, because the Parliament should have a say in things, not just the Government.

Let us turn to the purpose of the bill. Seven years ago, I saw the growth in the supply of puppies and dogs for purchase online on Gumtree and from puppy factory farms, and I thought about what could be done to reduce that. I decided that, if supply was the issue, the current legislation and policing were not having sufficient impact and that I should perhaps tackle demand, which I hoped would have an effect on supply.

We all know that there has been a surge in the level of dog ownership across Scotland and that it was exacerbated by Covid. Combined with the lack of an informed approach among the public to buying a dog—which I understand—that has also led to a rise in unscrupulous breeding and to casual and impulsive though well-meaning purchases. It is therefore more urgent to ensure that those who are thinking of getting a puppy or dog do so in an informed way.

My bill will require the Scottish Government to produce a code of practice that is to be used before someone acquires a puppy or dog—I stress “before”—and to educate prospective dog owners to make them pause—I do not mean to pun there—and reflect before taking on a puppy or dog. I would hope that that would reduce online acquisition. After all, we are talking about a sentient individual, not a fancy watch or a handbag.

The animal welfare issues, emotional distress, massive vet fees and high mortality rates that come about as a result of illegal puppy farming and the buying of dogs that people cannot care for have been well established. The Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has estimated that the illegal puppy trade is worth £13 million a year in Scotland. The Dogs Trust has highlighted the huge rise in problems that have arisen from people buying dogs that they cannot properly look after. Abandonment rates are rising.

This week, the Edinburgh Dog and Cat Home had too many dogs. One of them, Susan, a black lab-staffie cross, was abandoned on the streets at four years of age. She is boisterous but loving and friendly and she needs a home. I hope that this helps her and the others to find one. If anyone is thinking about getting a puppy or dog, why not try a rescue centre first?

Calls to the SSPCA helpline about giving up pets have quadrupled. Costs, vet care and inappropriate living conditions are cited as common reasons. A recent survey found that only 29 per cent of people considered cost when they got their pet.

Awareness of the signs of unscrupulous breeding is low. A report by the People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals found that only 43 per cent of dog owners know that a puppy should be seen with its mother. The SSPCA highlighted that 65 per cent of owners found their pets online, and there is £2.5 million of associated fraud. That is serious crime and big business in the criminal fraternity.

According to Government-commissioned research, 20 per cent of puppies bought online fall ill or die within a year. The Dogs Trust’s submission to my bill talks about

“educating and providing prospective dog owners with the tools to purchase or rehome a dog more responsibly, and to identify and avoid unscrupulous breeding practices.”

I agree with that. That is the crux of what the bill seeks to achieve—to change the behaviours of the public and to prevent many of the problems that I have highlighted. It is not punitive; it is meant to be educational and to change behaviours.

The code should also be short and easily understood. It will ensure that anyone who is buying a dog will reflect on questions such as “Do you have the right home environment?” and “Is it the right type of dog for you?” as part of the certification. Following that, the person who is handing over the puppy or dog and the person who is receiving it will be required to acknowledge that they have considered the issues raised in the code, with a certificate being issued that is to be kept throughout the dog’s lifetime.

That certificate is based on a process that is followed in France, where, since 2022, a certificate has been required when someone buys a dog or any of a number of other animals. Both my certificate and the French certificate require the provider to sign the certificate, which gives the supplier the responsibility of ensuring that the acquirer has gone through all the necessary steps in the checklist of questions that are contained in the certificate. I applaud Mike Flynn, the newly and recently retired senior inspector of the SSPCA, because the idea for the certificate was his. I call it the terms and conditions.

I look forward to the rest of the debate.

I thank Ariane Burgess for lodging amendment 23. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I have long highlighted the need for all Scottish Governments to treat members’ bills in the same manner as their own bills, once they are enacted as law. They both become acts of the Scottish Parliament, so it follows that the provision of resources for public awareness campaigns should go without saying. In this case, sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the bill already require that they are provided, not just when the code is introduced but when they are needed.

Members’ bills get publicity at their birth, but they do not get it thereafter in the same way that Government bills do. They should be treated the same.

I was going to move it in my closing speech, but I am happy to do it now if it makes everybody content.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Welfare of Dogs (Scotland) Bill be passed.

I thank members for bearing with me on this long day. I repeat that it has taken seven years to get here, but I hope that the Welfare of Dogs (Scotland) Bill will today become law.

First, I thank all the organisations and individuals who contributed to the process. I thank the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, which did not go easy on me, for its rigorous scrutiny; the Scottish Government, for being prepared to negotiate with this difficult back bencher; members who have supported me from start to finish and engaged with the bill today, and who have lodged some very helpful amendments; and, most of all, the staff of the non-Government bills unit, who have helped me so much and have survived my idiosyncrasies, which tested their professionalism. Finally, I thank my excellent staff—team Christine—for not only their work on the bill but the support that they provide for me day in, day out.

I make it clear—and I repeat—that I unequivocally support a ban on the use of shock collars in line with the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission’s recommendation of April 2023. I heard what the minister had to say, but the Scottish Government has dodged the issue for far too long. Once those reports are in, I look forward to draft regulations being produced for scrutiny by the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, and ultimately by the Parliament. Ross Greer’s amendments have pushed that argument forward. The bill was not the place for them, but he brought the issues forward, and I hope that we will now make progress.

This is my last session in Parliament. By the time that I have finished—and Parliament will be finished with me—I will have been here for 27 years. Before then, I hope to see at least scrutiny of a ban on shock collars being used in Scotland.

I will be brief, but I want to highlight the need for a stand-alone code, when a code already exists for dog owners. That is the point—the current code is for existing dog owners. It is 36 pages long; I call it “War and Peace”. Perhaps that is unfair, but my code should fit on one side of A4, and—as the minister indicated—it will contain clear and uncluttered language.

Finally, I turn to the certificate, which has to be produced if it is “reasonably” requested by animal welfare agencies where they have concerns about a dog’s welfare. That document, which is signed by both the person who is transferring the dog and the new owner, indicates that both the previous and new owners have fully considered the questions in the code.

The code is not punitive—it is there to assist and educate. With the passage of my bill, I hope that we will avoid the current situation in which abandoned and discarded puppies and dogs fill the kennels of the rescue centres, and ensure that owner and dog have a happy and rewarding relationship in the years ahead. I had such a relationship with my late dog, Roostie, who was a wonderful, kindly Irish setter who, to this day—40 years after her death—I remember with fondness.

Once again, I stress that I hope that the bill is a small step in reducing the impulse buying of puppies or dogs, which so often lines the pockets of the criminal fraternity. In so doing, I hope that, when the time is right, for the right reasons and in the right place, with the right dog and the right person, a relationship will develop between dog and person that will only enhance that person’s life.

I know that I have already said this, but I want to say it again: I move that the Welfare of Dogs (Scotland) Bill be passed. [Applause.]

I ask the member to ask the minister to introduce draft regulations that will be put to the committee, so that we can get a move on through the proper processes. That way, I hope that Ross Greer and I will both get to the destination that we want to get to. Perhaps we can get the minister to give a timescale for laying draft regulations—the Welsh model is there—and we can proceed on that basis.