Seòmar agus comataidhean

On the existing code of practice, although I would dispute that people pay much attention to it, do you accept that, unlike the code of practice in my bill, it does not deal specifically with all the issues that are raised prior to acquiring a dog? I am not talking about issues that come up once someone gets a dog but issues that arise before they even get to that point, which might mean that they might not get one at all.

I just have two more questions, and I am trying to be very pointed about them.

Minister, you referred to section 2(2) as being prescriptive; I will talk specifically to section 2(2)(a). You talked about different breeds of dog. I understand all about the breeds and how difficult it is when they are bred in certain ways, and I do not think that that section is prescriptive. It says:

“is the breed of dog suitable for you ... ?”,

which is very broad. It takes into account any changes in breeding that take place. If breeds come along that are fashionable and that are—to use a term that is perhaps controversial—deformed or have difficulties in breathing, walking or whatever, that is contained in the provision.

The provision asks, as I have said,

“is the breed of dog suitable for you ... ?”,

and it goes on to say:

“recognising that some breeds require more space, exercise and care than others”.

Does that encapsulate the concerns that you have raised about bulldog breeds such as—I can never say the word—Staffordshires and their difficulties with breathing and your point that people should consider all that before they take on such breeds?

I think that section 2(2)(a) is very broad and that it allows for future changes. I am just contesting your evidence.

I will come in again briefly, because this is my only chance to do so. Nobody has mentioned the little certificate that is covered in section 4. Would the minister accept that putting that simple requirement in the bill will provide confirmation that both the person who is transferring the animal and the person who is acquiring it have read and understood the commitments that lie ahead?

I do not want to embarrass the minister, but I advise her that I have agreed with the DPLR Committee that the code can come forward for parliamentary scrutiny. I do not know whether this committee has seen that. It is a shame that you do not have it either, minister, because that issue has already been resolved.

I have no further questions, convener—well, I have a lot more, but I am taking up a lot of time.

What would precede that is compliance with the code that I am trying to put into primary legislation, which involves people considering whether they have got the right breed, et cetera. That would all have to be done in advance.

I refer you to paragraph 80 of the policy memorandum, which says:

“Scottish Ministers will be able to make provision regarding public or other access to the register.”

I will not read out the whole paragraph, but further on it says:

“It is envisaged that specified third parties such as animal welfare officers and animal welfare organisations might be given access to the register information in order to enable them to fulfil their enforcement roles.”

It is seen as almost a two-tier thing.

Somebody may pretend that they have a litter of puppies because there has been an accident with their bitch, but if there was a sequence of numerous unlicensed litters, alerts would be put out. Do you accept that it would be possible to have some limited information available to the public—I understand the need to protect people—and for legitimate charitable organisations such as the SSPCA, the Dogs Trust and Blue Cross to have access to another level of information in order to enable them to detect whether there is covert criminal activity?

I turn to the final thing that I want to raise. Thank you for your tolerance, convener—you are well known for it. How bloody condescending of me to say that! I do not want to patronise you. [Laughter.]

It is interesting that the minister mentioned the multiple providers of microchipping information. That has been a bugbear of mine for a long time. Why is it that we have come so far down the road but we do not have a central Scottish register of microchipped puppies, even though that has been promised? If we had that, we could add the registration information that we have been discussing and also whether owners have been issued with dog control notices under the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010. It seems to me that this area is begging for a joining up of the dots, to use the minister’s favourite phrase.

Will you pursue the creation of a central Scottish database with the minister who is responsible, whether it is the Minister for Victims and Community Safety or another minister? The information is out there. It is just not centralised.

I have one final question, convener—I thank you for your tolerance. Has the minister seen my response to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee regarding the code of practice and any revisions to it?

I think that such an approach would be cost effective.

I note that the cabinet secretary’s statement referred to an increase in weather-related injuries from falls and accidents. I have read the winter plan, but the humble word “pavements” does not appear there. That is not a frivolous observation, because avoidable falls on icy pavements are obvious contributors to winter pressures at all levels of our health and social care service. In the discussions with COSLA, has any progress been made on, for example, providing self-service sand and salt bins by street—say, on request? If not, could that be progressed? It might sound like a silly observation, but there is nothing silly about it. Many people fall on icy pavements.

I add my concerns to those of my colleague Colin Beattie, as I represent Midlothian South, which has substantial population growth in Gorebridge, Penicuik and Newtongrange. I welcome the minister’s answer and I appreciate that the issue involves agreement with COSLA, but the distribution model needs to be revisited.