Official Report 1201KB pdf
The next item of business is stage 3 of the Welfare of Dogs (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—Scottish Parliament bill 32A—the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments.
The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes before the first division of stage 3. The period of voting for the first division will be 45 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate.
Members who wish to speak in the debate on a group of amendments should press their request-to-speak buttons or enter RTS in the chat as soon as possible after I have called the first amendment in the group. Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.
Section 1—Ministers to make code of practice
Group 1 is on the content of code relating to all dogs. Amendment 12, in the name of Ross Greer, is grouped with amendments 13, 14, 5, 6 and 16 to 19.
15:45
I thank Christine Grahame for taking the bill this far through the process. The focus of my efforts at stage 3 is on banning electric shock collars for dogs. I will cover the broader amendments in the group first, then come to that.
Amendment 16 would include a broad point in the code of practice about ensuring the welfare of a dog when training it. The amendment is not related to the ban on shock collars or on any other specific device, but would simply add a line to the voluntary code of practice for potential dog owners on how they train their dog.
Amendments 12 and 17 are about specific devices—prong and choke collars—but they do not represent a ban. Like amendment 16, they would add to the voluntary code. Those provisions would therefore be separate from the ban on shock collars, which is in amendments 13, 14, 18 and 20, as well as in the tidying-up amendment 21.
The reason for the separation is that I recognise that we are at different stages in the evidence gathering. The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission’s report on shock collars was completed two years ago: it was a thorough exercise. Evidence was gathered from experts and trainers, from people who use shock collars and people who oppose them. The report came to the clear conclusion that shock collars should be banned in Scotland.
The commission’s report on other aversive training techniques, including prong and choke collars, is due this April. I am not attempting to pre-empt that with a ban, but my amendments would allow ministers to move prong and choke collars into the same space of strict criminal liability that I intend for shock collars, if that is what the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission recommends in the spring. At the moment, my amendments would, essentially, add guidance against their use, rather than a ban. I am keen to hear the minister’s thoughts on those devices.
Amendment 22 would give ministers the power to move other provisions of the code from “may” to “must”, which would mean that they could create criminal liability to implement any recommendations that might come at a later point—for example, from the report that will be published in April.
Regarding the shock collar proposals, shock collars work by giving electric shocks to animals such as cats and dogs, via metal conductors. They make contact at the neck, with up to 6,000 volts being emitted for up to 11 seconds at a time. Depending on the voltage, they can cause discomfort up to significant physical pain, and potentially leave burns on the dog’s skin. At the very least, they need to cause fear and distress—that is the whole point of a shock collar. They have a range of up to 2 miles, which means that animals can be completely out of the owner’s sight when they are shocked. The devices are, in short, cruel.
In 2018, the Scottish Government published guidance on dog training aids that said:
“With respect to training devices, the Scottish Government does not condone aversive devices/training aids, including electronic shock collars (e-collars)”
That guidance was good progress, but it was not a ban.
The Scottish Government, quite rightly, moved to have the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission gather evidence on that question. In April 2023, the commission concluded that exercise. I will read the final paragraph in its conclusion. It said that
“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”.
That was the finding of an expert review that was commissioned by ministers and was published two years ago. However, the Government has not yet responded to it.
For years, there has been significant cross-party effort to achieve a ban on shock collars. I credit Maurice Golden with having led much of that effort, including, two years ago, lodging a motion that was signed by dozens of members from across the parties. I will read the first half of the motion, which provides an excellent summary of why we are here. It said:
“That the Parliament understands that a range of experts, including academics, dog behaviourists, trainers, and vets, consider that the use of handheld electric shock dog collar devices is unnecessary; believes that there is a lack of scientific evidence to support claims that the use of such dog collars reduces the risks of livestock worrying by responsible owners;”
Every major animal welfare organisation wants shock collars to be banned. The minister has received a letter in support of my amendments, on behalf of the Dogs Trust, Blue Cross, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the British Veterinary Association, Edinburgh Cat and Dog Home, the Kennel Club, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, and the People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals. For good measure, despite the fact that the bill concerns dogs, Cats Protection wanted it to be known that it, too, opposed the use of shock collars for dogs.
Ninety-five per cent of dog owners do not use shock collars and more than 80 per cent of the public want them banned. It is worth being clear that amendment 18 is very specific: it refers only to devices that apply an electric current to a dog’s skin. I have been contacted by dog owners who use vibrating collars to recall their dogs when they are off the leash, particularly dogs with deafness, but they are not covered by the amendment, which is unambiguously about electric shock collars only—those that apply an electric current to the dog’s skin.
A ban would, in effect, be achieved by the combination of amendments 18, 13 and 20, with amendments 14 and 21 being tidying-up amendments. Amendment 18 would add the provision against use of shock collars to the code of practice, which is otherwise voluntary, and amendment 13 would make it a “must” do rather than a “may” do. It would mean that ministers “must include” that provision in the code rather than it being suggested that they could. Amendment 20 would mean that use of shock collars
“must be relied on as tending to establish liability”
for an offence under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and amendment 21 would do a bit of tidying up.
A common argument in favour of shock collars relates to prevention of livestock worrying, but NFU Scotland is absolutely clear that the most effective way to do that is to keep a dog on a lead when it is around livestock. Parliament unanimously passed Emma Harper’s bill in 2021 to significantly increase penalties for livestock worrying and to clarify the law to make prosecutions easier. Most livestock worrying happens when a dog is out of its owner’s line of sight. That begs the question whether we think that it is appropriate to shock a dog because it is on the other side of a hill and we think that it might be attacking a sheep.
A ban on shock collars, combined with the existing higher penalties in Scotland as a result of Emma Harper’s legislation, should mean that more dogs are kept on leads around livestock in the first place. Scotland has a strong record on animal welfare, but we are lagging behind in this area. Shock collars are already banned across Europe—in Germany, France, Spain, the Netherlands, Austria, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Slovenia—and here in the UK, they have been banned in Wales since 2010. The Scottish Government does not support their use; it just has not banned them yet.
My amendments are not the only way to do that. Ministers already have the power to ban them by regulation through section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Maurice Golden’s motion that I quoted earlier called for that approach. I have lodged my amendments in this group because that has not happened yet. In all honesty, I am sick of waiting, and I know that animal welfare organisations and many dog owners are, too.
We do not need more reviews. The Government’s experts have done their job and given absolutely clear advice that the devices should be banned. That advice is still going unanswered, but there is no need to wait. However, if the minister is able to say unequivocally, without condition, that he will bring forward regulations to ban shock collars in the 13 months that remain of this session of Parliament, there will be no need for me to press my amendments.
That should not be conditional on there being more reviews or consultation being carried out first, because regulation would require, as part of the parliamentary process, consultation once it is published. All that I am looking for is a clear statement from the Government that it intends to ban shock collars during this session of Parliament and that it will bring forward regulations to that effect.
Like the minister’s expert advisers, every major animal welfare group, dozens of MSPs across all parties and four in five people across Scotland, I just want these cruel devices to be banned. If the minister cannot commit to doing that today, I will press my amendments and urge all members who want to ban electric shock collars to vote for amendments 13, 14, 18, 20 and 21 in order to achieve that end.
I move amendment 12.
Amendments 5 and 6 consider the breed and, crucially, type of dog, as there is lots of confusion over breeds—for example, much has been made of the banning of the XL bully breed, but no such breed exists. I have included the word “type”, so that all dogs are covered. The amendments are relatively minor.
Ross Greer’s amendments make up the substantive part of the group. We should support amendment 16, as it aims to ensure that
“the acquirer is committed to training the dog in a safe and healthy manner which ensures the welfare of the dog.”
That amendment could cover the points made in the subsequent amendments 17 and 18.
I agree with Ross Greer’s sentiment around electric shock collars and indeed other harmful devices, but we need to consider the context.
In 2018, I brought to Parliament debate that led the Scottish Government to announce a ban on electric shock collars and commission an independent report from the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission on the impact that such collars have on dogs.
In April 2023, the commission’s final report recognised that electric shock collars have the potential to cause animals pain and distress, and that maintaining the current position presents an “unacceptable risk” to dogs’ welfare.
In 2020, the Scottish National Party was defeated in a parliamentary vote that was brought by the Scottish Conservatives on ensuring that the Scottish Government reviews the position and produces a report on the banning of electric shock collars before 1 April 2025. That report will be released shortly, and I hope that it will lead to a ban.
That seems to be a more effective way to implement an effective ban, but I recognise that, as a discussion point, amendments 17 and 18 are an extremely useful mechanism in the debate.
Maurice Golden talked about the opportunity for amendments 17 and 18 to create a talking point. Do they not also offer the opportunity, as Ross Greer outlined, for an undertaking from the Government that we will see something before the end of the session?
Via legislation, we will see something by 1 April, so we will not have to wait for the end of the parliamentary session. Obviously, we are yet to hear from the minister.
Amendment 18 refers to
“any device which applies an electric current to the dog’s skin”.
I appreciate the intention for that to mean electric dog collars, but it could apply to electric fences. In my view, that could lead to a series of unintended consequences around the use of electric fences, not just for dogs but for a host of other—
I am grateful to Mr Golden for his contribution and for the points that he is making, but I want to clarify a point. The final part of amendment 18 says:
“any device which applies an electric current to the dog’s skin”.
However, in full, the amendment says
“whether the acquirer is committed to preventing unnecessary suffering and ensuring the welfare of the dog (for example, by not using any device which applies an electric current to the dog’s skin)”.
Given that we are talking about a code of practice for the acquisition of a dog, I am not clear as to how Mr Golden thinks that the dog coming into contact with an electric fence—for example, when it is on a walk—would somehow result in any ambiguity. I am interested to hear why he believes that that is the case.
Some people would use an electric fence to ensure that the dog is contained, particularly in rural settings. I agree that a physical fence would be preferable in such rural surroundings, but, for some people, an electric fence is a very useful way of ensuring that the dog does not run away.
The wording of amendment 18 causes a bit of confusion. I wish that such a substantive amendment had been lodged earlier, at stage 2, so that we could have worked with not just all stakeholders but all parties in order to achieve what we all want to achieve, which is an effective ban on electric shock collars and other harmful devices.
Amendment 19 would require the code of practice to ask those who are acquiring a dog whether they have identified a veterinary practice for their dog’s care.
I lodged a similar amendment at stage 2, and I thank the minister and Christine Grahame for the constructive support that they showed during that discussion and, again, ahead of today’s debate.
Regular vet check-ups are a key part of responsible dog ownership, from puppyhood to old age. Vets provide advice and rapid treatment in an emergency—for example, by providing out-of-hours care—and a check-up can identify health issues that arise due to negligence by the breeder.
The issue is an important one to raise with prospective dog owners before they acquire a dog, and I am keen to see it reflected in the code of practice. If I could have the minister’s assurance today that that requirement will, indeed, be included in the code of practice, I will consider not pressing amendment 19 to a vote.
I fully support Ross Greer’s amendments.
16:00
I will comment primarily on the amendments in the group that relate to electric shock collars and other harmful tools to train or control dogs. Practically all the animal welfare charities have raised concerns over a long period about electric shock collars and have called for their prohibition. So, too, has the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, which was set up by this Government to advise it on such matters. As we have heard, the issue is not new—it has been extensively debated. The evidence on the cruelty of such devices is clear, and action is overdue.
Electric shock collars can emit up to 6,000 volts for up to 11 seconds at a time. Some devices have a range of up to 2 miles, which means that dogs can be completely out of sight, as we heard, when they receive that shock.
The Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals says:
“Electric shock, prong and choke collars have no place in Scotland. Their use constitutes a cruel and counterproductive practice which only further endangers the welfare of dogs by inflicting pain and suffering.”
Blue Cross warns that the collars lead to:
“Anxiety-related behaviour or panic responses to seeing a collar or hearing the noise associated with their use. They can also re-direct aggression towards other dogs, their owner or members of the public”.
The British Veterinary Association has raised concerns that
“the use of shock collars on dogs generates considerable welfare harms”.
All argue that reward-based training is the only effective training method. Even the Scottish Government’s guidance on dog training aids, which was published in 2018, says the same.
The reality is that, if someone cannot control or train a dog humanely, they perhaps should not have one. That is why the amendments relating to such matters are relevant to a bill on responsible dog ownership. The Government says that the bill is not the place to enact such measures—Maurice Golden has repeated that—but it fails to say where that place is and, crucially, when it should happen.
Members have raised the fact that the amendments have come only at stage 3 or are not within the scope of the bill, but I remind the Government that there is a precedent. During the passage of the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020, it introduced late-stage amendments to ban the shooting of seal.
Too often, when it comes to animal welfare issues, the Government hides behind guidance. It knows that it has practically no legal underpinning, which limits its power when it comes to enforcement.
I very much support the amendments in the name of Ross Greer, and Labour will support all the amendments in the group.
I want to debate the issue purely on technical grounds, but to put my comments into context, I mention that I have been training dogs for more than 40 years. In fact, I have successfully trained 15 dogs, and some of the puppies that I have seen bred from my dogs have gone to assist people as part of their treatment for cancer; some have become service dogs; and some have become buddies for children who have a short time on this planet. They are very placid dogs, and in most cases, they have been very easy to train.
Over the 40 years that I have been involved, training has significantly changed. I am glad that it has changed, because it used to be more about dominating a dog; now, it is more about rewarding a dog, which is the way that it should be. However, I have had two dogs that proved significantly difficult. For one of them, the only way to keep it in my garden was to put an underground electric fence around the garden and have a collar fitted to the dog. On the occasions that it did not have the collar on, it would definitely wander off. On one occasion, it was brought back to me by a friend who was a local farmer after it had had a go at his sheep. That, sadly, resulted in the death of the dog, because I felt that I could not keep it.
I am not sure that I agree that electric collars have much of a place, but I think that they have some place. I would like to debate that issue as a Parliament. I understand Mr Greer’s points about the previous evidence that has been taken, but let us debate it. The problem is that we did not debate the amendments at stage 2.
I specifically took part in stage 2—I debated various matters then and at stage 1. I am sure that I do not need to remind members that, during the stage 1 debate, Christine Grahame said that if I did not know where my marriage certificate was—because I had raised a question about certificates—my wife would surely tell me. I am delighted to confirm that my wife did tell me where it was—she keeps it under lock and key at home. My issue is—
Will the member take an intervention?
I will do so in just a moment.
My issue is that we have not debated these amendments at stage 2 and, in fact, they have not been debated at committee.
I give way to Mr Greer.
I am grateful to the member for taking the intervention and I congratulate him on finding his marriage certificate.
I will clarify why the amendments were not lodged at stage 2 but have been lodged now. Roughly concurrent with the stage 2 process, I was lodging written questions with the Government to try to get its response to a report published by its own expert advisers in April 2023. At that point, the Government said that it was still considering its response. It then became clear that the Government had no intention of responding to the 2023 report until after another report was out—that report is due in April 2025. It was another example of the Government kicking issues further into the long grass.
That was the process behind this situation. I was trying, as I have made clear, to have this issue dealt with by regulation, and the Government has continued to shift the goalposts, despite having the evidence sat in front of it for two years.
That is an explanation, not a question, but I understand the point that Mr Greer is making.
I am a staunch parliamentarian when it comes to these things, and you would expect nothing less from a convener. I absolutely believe that part of the process is that these issues have to be raised for debate at all the bill stages. It should have been raised during stage 1 at the committee and at stage 2.
Frankly, in my opinion—Mr Greer is entitled to have a different opinion—bringing forward an argument at stage 3 that has not been debated during the course of the bill is wrong. I have always called that out, and I always will call it out—it is disrespectful to the committee that has been considering the bill, and it is disrespectful to the Parliament.
On that basis, although I want with all my heart to support Christine Grahame’s bill this afternoon, I find myself in a position as a parliamentarian in which I will not be able to support it if the amendments that Mr Greer is moving regarding shock collars and choke collars are passed by Parliament without having been properly scrutinised because they were not introduced through the correct procedure. I am sorry, Ms Grahame.
This is not the kind of debate that I would usually be speaking in, but I have decided to speak to the group 1 amendments after having received a significant number of queries from constituents over the past few days—perhaps the past week. Although I might be praising Christine Grahame too much by saying this, I assume that the fact that I had had no correspondence about the bill until these amendments were revealed is a testament to the bill’s strengths and competence.
What struck me about those who contacted me was that they were a mix of individual dog owners and owners of dog-related businesses. Significantly, they all cared deeply about the welfare of dogs. What made me sit up and listen was that they were all passionately opposed to Ross Greer’s amendment 18, which proposes the banning of e-collars.
The business owners who contacted me include Kelsey Kiernan from Bedlay Gardens in Moodiesburn, Andrea Kennedy from Gartcloss Kennels in Coatbridge and Daryl Thomson from Cruz K-9 Dog Training. Kelsey Kiernan has engaged with me and the Government before, for example, on the recent debate around XL bullies and the possible unintended consequences of having them. I very much value her expertise on issues around the welfare of dogs.
As everybody can see, on the face of it, amendment 18 appears to take a common-sense approach by preventing suffering. If it had not been for those who contacted me, that might have been where I landed on the matter, and I appreciate everything that Ross Greer has laid out. However, serious concerns have been relayed to me on possible unintended consequences, including a concern that the vague wording allows scope for a blanket ban to be implemented, which might, counterintuitively, be harmful to the dog population of Scotland. I was told that, for dogs struggling with behavioural issues, e-collars can provide a humane and efficient way to manage and modify challenging behaviours, enabling those dogs to live better and better-adjusted lives.
Will the member give way?
I will just make this point, John, and then I will let you in.
That was the case for my constituent Laura Rodgers, who told me about her dog Rex, who she rescued from a puppy mill at five weeks old. She said:
“A harness could be a death sentence for Rex and cause permanent paralysis. That is why we need to continue to use the prong and e-collar, or Rex will never go another walk in his life.”
Another constituent, Lauren Russell, who rescued a puppy that was brought over from Romania, said that, with
“the use of a muzzle, a slip lead and a figure-of-eight configuration, and an e-collar for recall and a crate to provide the correct amount of sleep, Angus is now a happier and calmer dog.”
I am happy to bring in John if he still wants to intervene.
I would be grateful if you would use Mr Mason’s full name, Mr MacGregor.
Apologies, Presiding Officer.
Thank you very much. It is nice to know that I still have some friends who call me by my first name.
Members: Aw!
The member highlights comments from one or two constituents who run businesses—I have also had one or two—and the legislation could have an impact on them. On the other hand, virtually all the animal welfare organisations are arguing against e-collars in particular, although not against muzzles, which he mentioned. Does he dismiss their thoughts?
I thank the member, and he will always be a friend.
I absolutely do not dismiss their thoughts. I accept that point and I will come back to it in a wee second.
Those are just two examples to help illustrate my thinking today. I have heard from several constituents who have taken in rescue dogs with severely complex needs and they have cited e-collars as the only tool that stood between training a dog humanely and having to put it to sleep. That is important.
Will the member take an intervention?
I have already taken an intervention.
I am advised that critics often misunderstand or focus on those who misuse e-collars, leading to calls for bans. However, banning them would limit the ability of responsible trainers and owners to manage dogs effectively, particularly those with complex needs, as I have already mentioned. I believe that education in the proper use of e-collars rather than full prohibition is the better solution at this time.
I was going to mention their effectiveness in rural areas, but Ross Greer has covered that. As I do not have a particularly rural constituency and there are probably people better placed than me to talk about that, I will leave it there.
It goes without saying that I do not support measures that would cause harm to animals but, in this instance, I believe that a more nuanced approach is needed rather than an outright ban. I also note that we are still waiting for the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission to report on aversive training methods, and I believe that it would be wise to wait until we see that report in full before pushing for any bans.
Will the member take an intervention?
I might be coming to the point that you are going to raise, but I will let you in.
Please always speak through the chair.
I am grateful to the member for taking my intervention. He started by saying that the issue was one of muddled wording, but the argument that he has laid out is not about the wording of the amendments. Mr MacGregor has laid out an argument in favour of the use of shock collars. That is a minority position that some people hold, and I recognise that, but I want him to clarify that. Is he arguing against the amendments because he thinks that there is an issue with the wording of them? He has not yet done that. What he has done so far is to argue against the Scottish Government’s position of 2018 and the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission’s position of 2023, which is that e-collars and shock collars should not be used—full stop.
I appreciate the member’s intervention, but I need to be clear that I am representing constituents who have contacted me—that is our job in this place. I was coming on to say that it is because constituents have not had a chance to feed their views into the debate on the amendments that they felt the need to come to me at short notice. That is why I went back to what Edward Mountain said. I am not opposed to a ban if a ban is the right thing, but it needs to be effective, as Maurice Golden said, and as I am sure that Christine Grahame and others will reflect. An effective ban needs to look at where there could be exemptions, but it also needs to go through a proper parliamentary process that constituents can feed into, so that members can hear from constituents such as those that I have heard from.
In January 2015, Christine Grahame brought a debate on a shocking way to treat a dog. I spoke in that debate and I also lodged a motion on 11 September 2007 that called for a ban on electric shock collars. What is happening now is that people who oppose the amendments are doing so on the basis of the protests of a few people who have a vested interest. Does the member agree that the people who have dogs’ best interests at heart are the Dogs Trust, the Kennel Club, Blue Cross and other animal welfare organisations, rather than people who might have a financial or other vested interest? We should be addressing the cruelty that is inherent in the shock collars, rather than hiding behind parliamentary process, as some members appear to be doing today.
I thank Kenneth Gibson for that intervention. I do not disagree that the animal welfare organisations support the amendments, but what I have been told by constituents, and what I believe, is that there is probably a sub-group for which there needs to be exemptions.
I go back to the case of Rex. I was told by my constituent that
“A harness could be a death sentence for Rex and cause permanent paralysis. That is why we need to continue to use the prong and e-collar, or Rex will never go another walk in his life.”
Another constituent that I mentioned, Lauren Russell, said that, after using an e-collar, her dog Angus is now happier and calmer.
16:15I have been told by constituents—and I have to believe what they are telling me—that if they do not use an e-collar with those dogs, the dogs could be put down. I know that no animal welfare organisation would have been up for that either.
I am not likely to vote for amendments 17 and 18, but I want there to be a fuller discussion on the matter. I want a discussion that brings in areas where e-collars could be needed in order to provide the effective ban that members have been talking about.
I am sympathetic to the intention behind Ross Greer’s amendments 17 and 18. Alongside other members, I have previously called for the Scottish Government to ban shock collars because they compromise dog welfare and can in some cases result in behavioural problems. However, I am unable to support amendments 17 and 18 because I do not believe that they constitute a full ban on the sale, supply and purchase of such devices. As such, they do not present the most comprehensive, effective approach for a ban.
I am also concerned that, because the amendments were lodged at such a late stage in the parliamentary process, there has been insufficient time to give them due scrutiny and ensure that their effect matches their aim. I note Ross Greer’s response to Edward Mountain on that point.
I would like to take this opportunity to repeat my call on the Scottish Government to bring in a full ban on shock collars. I would be grateful if the minister would provide an update on the Scottish Government’s work on that issue and on any work that it is doing on other aversive training methods.
I thank Ross Greer for explaining the purpose of his amendments, but I cannot agree that all of them are absolutely necessary. It is the Scottish Government’s intention to develop the details and contents of the proposed code of practice with stakeholders, and that work is already taking place. Having further items specified in the bill would restrict what could be decided in conjunction with stakeholders.
It is the view of the Scottish Government and Christine Grahame, which was shared by the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee at stage 1, that a new, stand-alone, concise and accessible code of practice relating specifically to the acquisition of dogs is a key aspect of the bill.
When the minister tells us that the Government agrees broadly with the principles behind an amendment but that this is not the right bill for it, that has a certain familiar ring to it. It is in favour of compensating the victimised miners, but not in the bill that pardons the victimised miners. It is in favour of ending the inhumane accommodation conditions for migrant workers, but not in the bill that provides assistance to farming and rural communities. Where does the Government think the right place is to outlaw the barbaric treatment of dogs if it is not in the Welfare of Dogs (Scotland) Bill?
I am disappointed in Mr Leonard’s attempt to politicise the entire bill, given that there will be, I hope, broad parliamentary agreement on it.
I will continue with the contribution that I was about to make. The intention is that the new code will complement the wider advice on keeping dogs in the current and future iterations of the code of practice for the welfare of dogs, with clear signposting between the codes to minimise any potential confusion. I believe that most of the amendments that have been lodged are more in keeping with the wider advice on keeping dogs rather than with a code of practice specifically relating to the acquisition of dogs. The bill is about the explicit process of acquiring a dog.
The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission has been asked to look at aversive training devices and is expected to report on the matter in the near future. A review of e-collars is under way, too, as part of a wider review of the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020, on which a report is due in April. The Scottish Government will carefully consider the recommendations from the SAWC and the review before deciding how to proceed. I believe that to be the correct course of action, which will give everyone time to fully consider the recommendations that the SAWC proposes and the outcome of the review, as well as respect the parliamentary process of proper scrutiny of legislation at the right time.
Will the member give way?
Ross Greer rose—
[Made a request to intervene.]
I will take Ben Macpherson’s intervention.
I appreciate what the minister has just laid out to the Parliament. Can he clarify that the undertaking that was given in 2018 by the previous cabinet secretary Roseanna Cunningham will be honoured? He has already set out the different ways in which that will be done but, for those of us who have campaigned on the issue in previous years, it would be helpful for that undertaking to be re-emphasised.
I am not aware of the undertaking that Roseanna Cunningham gave, but I will find out exactly what Ben Macpherson is talking about.
To be clear, the proposed amendments do not constitute a ban on any particular training device, so they would not have any practical effect in prohibiting the use, supply or possession of a specific sort of training device. They would simply complicate the code and cause unnecessary confusion. Furthermore, the code does not have the effect of criminalising behaviour, as, I believe, is intended through the amendments. Therefore, I ask Ross Greer not to press or move his amendments.
I rarely ask whether the minister agrees with my position, but does he agree that this is another example of the Greens expecting the Parliament to make legislation on the hoof or, in this case, on the paw? Rather than the Parliament scrutinising legislation properly, this is another example of the Greens proposing something at the last minute, as was the case with the proposals on mountain hares and kelp harvesting, that would not achieve the outcomes that members in the Parliament would want. The proposals should have been properly debated, and there was plenty of opportunity for similar amendments to have been lodged at stage 2.
In the spirit of the consensus that, I hope, the debate will deliver, I will not agree with any of that, but I hear the points that Finlay Carson has made.
I can support Ross Greer’s amendment 16 on ensuring that the acquirer of a dog
“is committed to training the dog in a safe and healthy manner”.
The amendment is in keeping with the other content of the code, which is about encouraging people who are acquiring a dog to think about the practicalities and realities of dog ownership.
I am finding much of the minister’s contribution deeply confusing. I have only one question: will the minister bring forward regulations before the end of this parliamentary session to ban shock collars, as the Government’s advisers recommended unequivocally two years ago?
Ross Greer is correct to say that, since the bill has been published, people have been writing to us to ask us to ban electric shock collars, but there are also people who have asked us not to ban them. It goes back to the point that Finlay Carson made: let us have a proper debate and discussion about what that would look like. A further report will be published in April by the SAWC. Once that has been delivered, let us come back and have a proper debate about the issue.
The minister says that we need to wait for a further report from the SAWC. What was lacking in the thoroughly evidenced report of April 2023, which included consultation with dog owners, animal welfare experts and those who use shock collars, that has meant that we need to wait for another report before we can come to a view?
I am not entirely convinced that Mr Greer understands that the SAWC report was limited in scope, covering only remote controlled training collars that use a static pulse as stimulus. There is a wide range of e-collars, and there are many other aversive devices. If we are going to debate how to train dogs effectively and humanely, let us do it properly with full political scrutiny.
The suggestion in Ariane Burgess’s amendment 19 that the identification of a veterinary practice could be included in the proposed code of practice is a good one, but that sort of detail should be left to officials and stakeholders to take forward as the code is developed. Stakeholder meetings on the code of practice started in 2024 and will continue after this debate has concluded. Officials will raise that proposal in the discussions with stakeholders. However, I ask Ariane Burgess not to move amendment 19.
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—
Will the member take an intervention?
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.
Will the member take an intervention?
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.
I am grateful to Christine Grahame for the passionate way in which she has brought her experience and wisdom to this matter. In an attempt to allow the temperature or pressure to recede a bit—with no disrespect to the Presiding Officer, who has the final decision on stage 3 amendments—is it perhaps time to look at the purpose of stage 3 proceedings and at what happens when, as Christine Grahame said, a new matter is presented at this stage of a bill?
16:30
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.
I call Ross Greer to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 12.
I want to preface my comments by making it absolutely clear that I have no doubt that all the dog owners who have been in touch with MSPs to defend the use of shock collars love their dogs. However, that does not change the reality or the evidence of the cruelty of those devices. That evidence is absolutely clear, whether it be the evidence that has been gathered by every animal welfare organisation in Scotland that has made representations to the minister in support of my amendments or by the Government’s Scottish Animal Welfare Commission.
I want to draw on the SAWC report to address the points that have been made about potential ambiguity and the point that Maurice Golden raised about whether the bill would bring in electric fences. I note that the definition in my amendment 18 is the SAWC definition—I have lifted my definition word for word from that. I am not freestyling or coming up with something brand new. It is the definition that was produced by the Government’s expert advisers.
Beatrice Wishart called for a full ban in explaining why she would not support my amendments, but this is how we can force the issue to a full ban. The Government has been failing to ban shock collars for years. I do not believe that my amendments are the only way of doing that—I have made that clear. They are not even my preferred way of doing it. However, I have lodged the amendments, because the Government refuses to take forward the preferred way to deliver a ban.
Will Ross Greer take an intervention?
In a second.
The preferred way has been advocated for by a number of members from across the chamber, including Finlay Carson, who was a supporter of previous efforts to ban shock collars by regulation.
I thank Ross Greer for giving way. Do you not see that you stood to undermine Christine Grahame’s—
Always speak through the chair, please.
I beg your pardon, Presiding Officer.
It is quite clear that amendments at this late stage could undermine Christine Grahame’s bill and the general principles behind its introduction. Mr Greer has been in Parliament long enough to recognise that, if we are to pass good legislation, the issue should have been raised at stage 2. I ask him why, given his passion for a ban to come into law, he did not raise the matter at stage 2 to allow the committee to gather evidence. In that way, the Parliament could have been united in banning shock collars, instead of the member grandstanding and potentially getting a Green press release out of it, and the legislation falling at the first hurdle.
I think that that contribution was beneath the member. I have followed the correct parliamentary process. If I had not, I would not have been able to lodge my amendments.
However, as I explained earlier, at stage 2, the minister was still telling me that the Government was considering its response to the report of 2023. It is not doing that. It has kicked the issue into another report, and I am quite sure that, after that, it will kick it into another report, commission, working group or some other form of throwing the matter into at least the next session of Parliament. That is my frustration.
For a start, the minister said that the code of practice does not criminalise behaviour. My amendments would criminalise the specific form of behaviour that I am addressing. That is why I am giving Parliament the opportunity to consider them. I could see the discomfort of members across the chamber—SNP members in particular—who want shock collars to be banned and who wanted the minister to give some indication that the Government was moving towards such a ban. That is why I intervened on the minister, and it is why I have repeatedly asked him that question. He has very obviously avoided it, because the Government has no intention of banning shock collars. That is my frustration, and it is why I lodged my amendments.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will happily take an intervention from the minister. I again ask him: will the Scottish Government introduce regulations to ban shock collars in this session of Parliament?
It is up to me to ask the question that I want to ask in my intervention, rather than be required to answer the question that has been put to me.
I cannot recall Ross Greer making a specific request to me during the bill process to ban electric shock collars. He has asked a number of parliamentary questions at various points, but at no point have I been approached and asked to include such a ban in any part of the bill.
I understand the strength of feeling in this debate—I genuinely do—but we have to go through the process. We have examples of people who did not know that certain things were going to happen in their lives and who have been caught out as a result of what has happened to other bits of legislation at stage 3. Many views have been expressed on both sides of the debate. I would very much like us, as a Parliament, to be able to have that debate in full, with all the details. Regardless of who wins or loses, that will be the result of that debate.
Mr Greer has asserted that he brought the matter to me in the past, but that is not necessarily the case.
I found that—
Will the member take an intervention? I hope that it is helpful.
I will happily do so.
I ask the member to ask the minister to introduce draft regulations that will be put to the committee, so that we can get a move on through the proper processes. That way, I hope that Ross Greer and I will both get to the destination that we want to get to. Perhaps we can get the minister to give a timescale for laying draft regulations—the Welsh model is there—and we can proceed on that basis.
At this point, I happily invite the minister—this has become a somewhat oddly structured debate—to make an intervention to respond to Christine Grahame’s request. Will he bring forward draft regulations to ban shock collars in this session of Parliament?
I will not commit to anything at this stage until we have gone through the full process.
There you go, Presiding Officer. That is my frustration. I absolutely did not want this debate to take the tone that it is now taking. The minister has asked us to follow the process, but for how many years and decades must members keep following the process?
The minister has said that this debate has brought up strong positions on both sides—it has indeed. Any member is entitled to argue against a ban on shock collars. The issue is that the Scottish Government’s position is that it is opposed to shock collars. The Scottish Government took that position in 2018—it just would not enforce it.
Will the member give way?
I will give way to Christine Grahame in a second.
What we have heard from the minister today represents a significant departure from—indeed, a significant rolling back on—the position held by the Scottish Government since 2018 of being against shock collars.
Before I take Christine Grahame’s intervention, I ask the minister this: is it the Scottish Government’s position that it is opposed to the use of shock collars?
I will have an opportunity to sum up.
The minister will not have an opportunity to sum up. I am summing up on this group of amendments.
At this point, I will take Christine Grahame’s intervention.
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.
Please wind up, Mr Greer.
Presiding Officer, I appreciate that this has become a debate within a speech, which is something that we have not done in a while.
I emphasise to the minister—
Will the member accept an intervention?
In a second.
The minister has put SNP members in a difficult position. We have all repeatedly given him opportunities to resolve this by indicating in concrete terms how the Scottish Government will take the issue forward, but he has failed to do so. I see him consulting with other ministers and would be grateful at this point if he could give some indication of a concrete next step and if he could specifically address my question whether the Scottish Government still maintains its 2018 position against the use of shock collars.
Presiding Officer, I will begin to wind up once I have taken that intervention.
I give the member an absolute commitment that I will write to the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee to arrange to go back to that committee for a full and proper debate about whether shock collars should be banned.
I will be pressing my amendments, because we have had that debate and the Scottish Government has taken advice from the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission.
It is very frustrating. Christine Grahame was right to identify what I have proposed as a plan B. It is my B plan, but it is not even a B plan, because we gave the minister an opportunity to clarify whether he would bring forward regulations, but he would not do that. We then gave the minister an opportunity to clarify whether he would bring forward draft regulations, but he would not do that. This afternoon, we gave the minister an opportunity to confirm that the Scottish Government still maintains the policy position against the use of shock collars that it published in 2018, but he would not do that either. The minister has had multiple opportunities to avoid putting members of his own party through a vote on the issue, but he has failed to do so. I will not let down the many people outside Parliament who have campaigned for a ban for a long time—I will be giving Parliament the opportunity to vote on this today.
In closing, I will make a few brief points. Fulton MacGregor referred to a constituent who said that they would put down their dog if the ban went through. I ask him to please tell that constituent to give their dog to a shelter, because every major animal welfare organisation that runs shelters is also opposed to the use of shock collars. Those who have the most experience of working with the most difficult dogs are opposed to shock collars and support my amendment, so I would welcome it if he relayed to his constituent that the appropriate thing to do with a dog that the owner genuinely cannot look after is to give that dog to a shelter and not have it put down.
The member has misrepresented what I said, which was that many constituents to whom I had spoken talked about training rescue dogs and the choices that they faced in those unique circumstances. It is definitely not like Ross Greer to do so, but he has misrepresented me.
Please close, Mr Greer.
With respect, I do not think I did misrepresent the member.
I have given the minister and the Government multiple opportunities to make any kind of commitment to move the issue forward and therefore to avoid my having to press my amendments to a vote. The minister has failed to do so.
We are long past the point of ending this very specific form of animal cruelty. Parliament should have the opportunity to vote on the matter today, in the absence of any Government action to deliver a ban on the use of shock collars. I will therefore be pressing my amendments.
The question is, that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division. As this is the first division of stage 3, I suspend proceedings for around five minutes to allow members to access the digital voting system.
16:43 Meeting suspended.
Before we move to the vote, I am minded to accept a motion without notice, under rule 9.8.5A of standing orders, to propose that the time limit for groups 1 to 3 be extended by 30 minutes. I invite the Minister for Parliamentary Business to move the motion.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 9.8.5A, the time limit for groups 1 to 3 be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Jamie Hepburn]
Motion agreed to.
We come to the vote on amendment 12, in the name of Ross Greer. Members should cast their votes now.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Gillian Mackay]
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Rona Mackay]
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn]
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn]
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 27, Against 85, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 12 disagreed to.
Amendment 13 moved—[Ross Greer].
The question is, that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Gillian Mackay]
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Rona Mackay]
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn]
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn]
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 28, Against 84, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 13 disagreed to.
Amendment 14 not moved.
We move to group 2, which is on consultation on code. Amendment 4, in the name of Maurice Golden, is grouped with amendment 15.
The amendments in the group would insert into section 1(3) a list of who Scottish ministers would be required to consult, which would be those whom they consider to be representative of dog breeders and buyers, such as dog charities.
I move amendment 4.
The Scottish Government supports Maurice Golden’s amendments. An initial stakeholder workshop took place in 2024 and we will be holding further workshops to refine the code. Members of the working group on the code of practice include representatives from the SSPCA, SAWC, Blue Cross, the PDSA, the BVA, the Kennel Club, Dogs Trust, OneKind, Scotland’s Rural College and Battersea Dogs and Cats Home. Those are the types of stakeholders to whom amendment 4 refers. The amendments reflect what is happening in practice to develop the code, which is why we support them.
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.
I thank the minister and the member for their collaboration on the amendments. I echo Christine Grahame’s sentiments and press amendment 4.
Amendment 4 agreed to.
Amendment 15 moved—[Maurice Golden]—and agreed to.
Section 2—Content of code: in relation to sale or transfer of dog of any age
Amendment 5 moved—[Maurice Golden].
The question is, that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
The vote is closed.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app froze. I would have voted yes.
17:00
Thank you, Mr Cole-Hamilton. Your vote will be recorded.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn]
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn]
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Gillian Mackay]
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Rona Mackay]
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 100, Against 9, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 5 agreed to.
Amendment 6 moved—[Maurice Golden].
The question is, that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
The vote is closed.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect to the app. I would have voted yes.
Thank you, Mr Balfour. Your vote will be recorded.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Rona Mackay]
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn]
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn]
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Renewablenie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Gillian Mackay]
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 103, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 6 agreed to.
Amendment 16 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.
Amendment 17 moved—[Ross Greer].
The question is, that amendment 17 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Gillian Mackay]
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Rona Mackay]
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn]
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn]
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 26, Against 86, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 17 disagreed to.
Amendment 18 moved—[Ross Greer].
The question is, that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
The vote is closed.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seem to be having problems with the app this evening. I would have voted no.
Thank you, Mr Mountain. Your vote will be recorded.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Gillian Mackay]
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Rona Mackay]
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn]
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn]
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 28, Against 84, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 18 disagreed to.
Amendment 19 not moved.
Section 3—Content of code: in relation to sale or transfer of young dog by first owner
Group 3 is on content of code relating to young dogs: microchipping. Amendment 7, in the name of Maurice Golden, is grouped with amendments 8, 9 and 11.
My amendments in this group introduce a specific provision that highlights the legal requirement under the Microchipping of Dogs (Scotland) Regulations 2016 for a dog to be microchipped by the time they reach eight weeks old. In addition, individuals registering litters of puppies should be required to, if requested by an enforcer, provide microchip numbers with up-to-date details for each puppy.
I move amendment 7.
I call Rhoda Grant, who I believe wishes to contribute. Ms Grant, could you please put your camera on?
I have. Let me try again.
That does not appear to have worked.
It is obviously not ideal that nobody can see you make your contribution, but given the particular circumstances of where we are now at eight minutes past five, I invite you to make your contribution.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. My contribution will be very short. We looked at microchipping registers during stage 2, and the consensus was that it was better carried out on a UK-wide basis, but I support Maurice Golden’s amendments. I recognise that microchipping can be used to trace dog ownership and is a tool that can be used to identify and discourage illegal puppy farms. Those breeders do not have the welfare of dogs at heart, and they exploit potential buyers.
If Maurice Golden’s amendments are agreed to, it would put the onus on the buyer to ensure that the dogs are microchipped on purchase. That might go a long way to deal with dog theft and puppy farming, so I support the amendments.
These amendments mean that, in making the code, the Scottish ministers will consider whether to require the prospective acquirer to confirm that the dog has been microchipped. That is in line with the obligation that is already in place to microchip under regulation 6 of the Microchipping of Dogs (Scotland) Regulations 2016, which states that
“every keeper of a dog which is older than 8 weeks must ensure that it is microchipped.”
Furthermore, the certificate will require the prospective acquirer to confirm whether they have received the microchip details. The amendments will ensure that the definition of a microchip is consistent with other legislation, specifically the 2016 regulations. We support the amendments.
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 call Maurice Golden to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 7.
I agree with the previous contributions regarding a UK-wide system for microchipping and, indeed, checking of microchipping via vets.
I will press amendment 7.
Amendment 7 agreed to.
Amendment 8 moved—[Maurice Golden]—and agreed to.
Section 4—Content of code: certificate
Amendment 9 moved—[Maurice Golden]—and agreed to.
We turn to group 4, which is on the certificate. Amendment 1 is grouped with amendments 2, 3 and 10.
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.
Have you concluded, Ms Grahame?
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 call Maurice Golden to speak to amendment 10 and other amendments in the group.
We are very supportive of Christine Grahame’s amendments in the group.
My amendment 10 seeks to reflect that some breeders use puppy contracts, which contain similar information to what the bill suggests. For example, the Kennel Club’s use of puppy contracts is extensive.
However, having listened to the contribution from Christine Grahame, I have decided not to move amendment 10.
17:15
I support the amendments proposed by Christine Grahame, which will make it clear to dog owners the importance of retaining the certificate to show to an inspector or police when that person reasonably requires to see it in accordance with their powers under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. To add to what Christine Grahame has said about the obligation, there will be a clear expectation in the code of practice for persons responsible for animals to take the relevant action. Section 6 of the bill states:
“A person’s failure to comply with any provision of the code of practice does not in itself make the person liable to proceedings of any sort.”
However, it goes on to say:
“In any proceedings for a relevant offence ... failure to comply with a relevant provision of the code of practice may be relied upon as tending to establish liability”.
In the bill, the word “must” is used to describe the content that ministers must include in the code, and “is to” has been used to describe the expectations on the persons to whom the code applies. The effect is that there will be a provision in the code for acquirers to keep the certificate and to produce it when reasonably requested in an investigation. Failure to do so will be evidence that the person has committed the offence of failing to give information and assistance to an inspector or a constable when exercising a relevant power under schedule 1 to the 2006 act. It may also be evidence that the person has committed an animal welfare offence under the act. That is all set out in section 6.
I am glad to hear that Maurice Golden will not move amendment 10, so I will not continue with my remarks in that regard.
Christine Grahame, do you wish to add anything by way of wind-up?
No. I will press amendment 1. The dizziness was metaphorical. I have had concern shown for me in the chamber.
I am delighted to note the concern that members have kindly shown Ms Grahame, and that everything is all right.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendments 2 and 3 moved—[Christine Grahame]—and agreed to.
Amendment 10 not moved.
Amendment 11 moved—[Maurice Golden]—and agreed to.
Section 6—Effect of code
Group 5 is on effect of code. Amendment 20, in the name of Ross Greer, is grouped with amendments 21 and 22.
Members will be pleased to know, given the impending weather pattern and travel disruption, that I will not be moving amendments 20 to 22. They are either consequential or closely related to what we have just thoroughly debated. I imagine that the outcome of a vote would be similar, so I am happy not to move any of them.
Amendment 20 not moved.
Amendment 21 not moved.
I call Ross Greer to move or not move amendment 22.
Not moved. Perhaps we should not move amendments en bloc in the future.
Amendment 22 not moved.
Section 7—Public awareness and understanding of code
Group 6 is on public awareness and understanding of code. Amendment 23, in the name of Ariane Burgess, is the only amendment in the group.
Amendment 23 returns to an issue that I previously raised at stage 2, relating to how the Government and public bodies will promote public awareness of the code of practice. Without a high level of public awareness of the code, the legislation will not promote the behaviour change that we all wish to see when it comes to selling and acquiring dogs and puppies. For that, there must be sufficient resources for effective public-awareness campaigns and related activities.
I thank the SSPCA and the British Veterinary Association, which have given their support to amendment 23. I also thank the minister and his team for their engagement on the issue ahead of stage 3. With sufficient assurances today, I will consider not pressing amendment 23 to a vote.
I move amendment 23.
I thank Ariane Burgess for explaining amendment 23 and for the engagement that she and I have had. However, I remind the member that section 7 of the bill already includes a duty on the Scottish ministers to
“take reasonable steps to ensure public awareness and understanding of the code of practice.”
It is the view of the Scottish Government that taking “reasonable steps” would, by implication, include ensuring that there were suitable resources available, so amendment 23 is unnecessary. We expect that publicising the new code will require a significant public awareness-raising campaign, ideally with co-ordinated messaging from the main welfare organisations and enforcement agencies. We will be working with stakeholder organisations to consider the most effective way of doing that.
I ask Ariane Burgess not to press the amendment.
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 call Ariane Burgess to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 23.
In the interests of time, I wind up. I will not press the amendment.
Amendment 23, by agreement, withdrawn.
That ends stage 3 consideration of amendments.
Air ais
Business MotionAir adhart
Welfare of Dogs (Scotland) Bill