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)

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.

The First Minister must, of course, be constrained and diplomatic and work in the interest of Scottish businesses. I understand that, but I am not so constrained. I find Donald Trump to be creepy and see his policies potentially wrecking not only the world economy but the Scottish economy.

Does the First Minister recall that, in 2019, phase 1 of Trumponomics involved using tariffs against the European Union, which impacted Scotland when a 25 per cent tariff on each bottle of malt whisky cost the industry £600 million in just 18 months? What damage does the First Minister worry would be brought to the whisky industry and others if tariffs were to continue or to be reimposed?

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.