Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.