Seòmar agus comataidhean

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 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.

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.

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.

Will the member give way?