Seòmar agus comataidhean

Heaven forfend Dr Allan would offend me. I will come to that point.

The evidence that was provided to the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee reflects the value of educating and changing the behaviour of buyers, improving it and, as a result, changing the demand and buying practices of the public. That would have a positive impact, preventing so many of the notable problems that I have just highlighted and of which I am sure members are aware. Reduced demand affects supply.

One of the key questions that came up during stage 1 evidence taking, which the committee deliberated on, is why we need a separate new code when there is an existing code on dog ownership. The code in the bill serves a very different purpose from that of the existing code. It will have a very different appearance, given its distinct purpose, and it applies to a different group of people. It has a new certificate and associated process attached to it.

The current code, which relates to someone who already has a dog, runs to 28 pages, with additional web links. If I was being naughty I might call it “War and Peace”—but I am not naughty. However, I wonder how many dog owners even know it exists, let alone read it. The code under the bill applies to people who are considering acquiring a dog, and it would do three key things. It would redirect people from owning a dog if they realised that they could not afford one; it would help people to take more time to identify the right breed for them; and it would help people to assess the situation in which the puppy is being sold, so that they see warning signs that something is amiss. The briefest consideration of those questions will give pause for thought—no “paws” pun intended—in particular for those buying a puppy through online sales. That will prompt lots of valuable pauses for thought—about the cost and the breed, questioning why it is not possible to see the mother with the puppy, and so on—as will asking people to sign the certificate and to confirm that they understand the need to retain it and to have read the code.

I emphasise the importance of the certificate under the bill. It seeks to ensure that anyone buying a dog will reflect on those questions and others, prompting them to educate themselves further before making a choice. The certificate is based on a process that is followed in France, where, as of 2022, a certificate is required when someone buys a dog or any other number of animals. My certificate, like a French certificate, will require the provider and the acquirer to sign it, so that they both know what they are doing. I thank, in particular, Mike Flynn, who brought that to my attention.

I will move on very quickly and touch on other matters. I have only eight minutes, I believe.

I hope that Mr Smyth accepts that it is difficult to get into those complexities in a member’s bill. However, there are references in my bill to existing animal welfare legislation, which will apply if there are issues of cruelty. The lack of—or evidence of—a certificate will be part of ensuring, if necessary, a prosecution.

I will comment on one or two of the contributions that have been made in the debate. I have already responded to some points in my interventions. On the types of dog that the bill should apply to, my initial preference was for the code and the certificate to apply only to dogs that are intended to be pets. As I said, however, the committee’s scrutiny has highlighted a potential loophole. On that basis, I am seriously considering amending the bill at stage 2 so that the code and the certificate will cover all dogs.

On publicity, which Ariane Burgess raised, I could not agree more with the committee’s clear view that the public awareness that accompanies the bill will be vital. I have pressed the Government for years to show the same serious commitment to publicity for members’ bills that it shows for its own bills. That is why I have estimated funding for a sizeable initial campaign and then follow-up work in future years to raise awareness. After all, the Parliament passes members’ bills just as it passes Government bills. They all become acts of the Scottish Parliament and they all deserve to be treated equally.

I do not think that I have a supplementary question, as the cabinet secretary has answered my question. I thank her for her very full answer, and I am glad that we have progressed a bit towards appointing a project manager. I also thank her for the recent upbeat meeting with parties, including my colleague Rachael Hamilton and representatives of Scottish Borders Council. I think that we made progress.

To ask the Scottish Government what progress is being made on the extension of the Borders railway south to Carlisle. (S6O-03379)

—that the maximum level of compensation is £2,950. Surely the member cannot think that that is a reasonable offer.

First, I commend the WASPI women in Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale and across Scotland for their resilience and their determination to see justice for all women who have been affected by the unilateral changes to the state pension. I lodged a motion on the issue in March. I will truncate it, but it said:

“That the Parliament ... recognises the report’s findings, which reflect on failings by the DWP ‘to provide accurate, adequate and timely information about changes to the State Pension age for women’; acknowledges what it sees as the significant detrimental impact that the DWP’s failure to communicate effectively has had on the affected women’s ability to plan for their retirement and the financial implications that this has created; believes that women ... have been ... deprived of the pension that they rightfully deserve, and further believes that their fight for justice is taking far too long to be adequately addressed; urges the UK Government to acknowledge the DWP’s failings as highlighted in the ... report, issue an immediate apology and deliver fair compensation”.

I want to be consensual, but I note that nobody from Labour, the Tories or the Liberal Democrats signed that motion, which I do not think is a hostile one.

I consider it a fact that the provision of the state pension is a contract between the Government and the people, so the unilateral variation of the terms of that contract should not have been implemented. I think that, as times have moved on, we all agree on the equalisation of men’s and women’s eligibility for the state pension, but the manner in which the age of eligibility for the state pension was increased was at best clumsy and at worst brutally unjust. The latter view is supported by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s report.

That brings me to the yawning gap between the compensation level that is recommended in the report, which is between £1,000 and £2,950, and the claim of the WASPI women for £10,000, which I do not consider to be over the top. Maggie Chapman rightly drew attention to the situation in which a woman who has lost seven years of pension might have seen their pension pot lose £40,000 in value. Even the £2,950 figure is derisory, as the moving finishing line of the retirement age has left and will leave many in financial difficulties. The recent announcement that a failed asylum seeker who volunteered to be transported to Rwanda was given £3,000 in cash and had other expenses paid puts that in even more context, showing what a slap in the face that recommended compensation level is to the WASPI women.

A survey of 8,000 WASPI women that was carried out in the autumn of 2023 found that 25 per cent had struggled to buy food in the previous six months. What a condemnation.

I say to Beatrice Wishart that, unfortunately, I was born in the 1940s. I had planned my finances on the basis that I would retire at 60, when I became eligible for the state pension—I did not know that I was coming to the Parliament. That was especially timed for paying off my mortgage, having divorced in my late 50s. Divorce is not uncommon in older people these days, and it adds to the financial pressures on women who may have been relying on a partner to support them and on them mutually financing each other.

UK ministers must set up a compensation scheme that provides full and genuine compensation for the women concerned. I ask members to look at the figures that I quoted. So far, neither the UK Conservative Government or the Labour Opposition has come forward with such a scheme. It is time to walk the walk. There should be no more talking about it. We know the position. It has fallen to the SNP people, such as Patricia Gibson, to push for justice. I have to say—perhaps this is not the kindest of notes on which to end my speech—that that may be why no Labour or Tory MSP signed my motion in the first place.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My gadget would not connect. I would have voted no.

Will the member give way?

I think that the issue with your amendment is that you seem content—