Seòmar agus comataidhean

The amendments in my name remove the specific questions from the bill, as suggested by the committee at stage 1. The broad themes underlying the questions will continue to be listed as things that a prospective acquirer should consider before acquiring a dog. However, we fully understand and share Christine Grahame’s desire to have the code and certificate written in simple and straightforward language that is easy for the public to understand. I give an assurance now that that is what we expect to be produced.

The suggestion in Ariane Burgess’s amendment 1 that identifying a veterinary practice could be included within the proposed code of practice is a good one, but that sort of detail should be left to be employed by officials and stakeholders as the code is developed. Therefore, I ask her not to press that amendment.

I move amendment 19.

I absolutely agree. I like the proposal as well. I might even go so far as to say that it should be both the acquirer and the seller who are notified about who the vet is.

I agree with everything that Ariane Burgess is saying. However, I think that the matter should be in the code, as part of the overall package of what we are trying to deliver. I am not trying to stifle the proposal, and I am more than happy to meet her between stage 2 and stage 3 in order to clarify that.

I have nothing to add, convener.

Amendment 32 agreed to.

Amendment 33 moved—[Jim Fairlie]—and agreed to.

I have nothing further to add, convener.

Amendment 34 agreed to.

Amendments 35 and 36 moved—[Jim Fairlie]—and agreed to.

Amendment 66 moved—[Rachael Hamilton].

I thank Ariane Burgess for explaining the purpose of amendments 2 and 3. I cannot agree with the amendments, which I believe are unnecessary, because the Scottish Government’s intention is to develop the details and contents of the proposed certificate with stakeholders. Specifying items in the bill would restrict what can be decided in conjunction with the stakeholders, and including a reference to additional personal information on the certificate is considered unnecessary. That is the sort of detail that is best left to the further development of the code by officials and stakeholders. Therefore, I cannot support the amendments.

Rhoda Grant’s intervention demonstrates exactly why we should have these discussions when we are developing the code, rather than while we are sitting in the committee. I ask Ariane Burgess not to press amendment 2 and not to move amendment 3.

I point out to Christine Grahame that we are leaving the same wording in the bill—it will be there.

I have absolutely no idea. Think of Covid. Who knows what might happen? There could be any number of reasons why a code could not be concluded within the 12-month period. The proposal allows us flexibility if something does happen. We fully expect to have it done well within the 12-month period, but the proposal is a security, just to make sure.

I assure members that we consider it highly unlikely that it will be necessary to use that power, and we fully expect that the code of practice will be developed, consulted on and come into effect well within the 12-month period after royal assent, should the bill be passed. However, it is only prudent to be prepared for any unforeseen complications and to avoid having to then consider returning to primary legislation to extend the deadline, should that become necessary.

Finlay Carson’s amendments 61 and 62 would require the code to be laid before Parliament for approval and would remove any timescale for preparing the code. The Scottish Government’s main reason for the commitment to replace codes of practice that were made under section 37 of the 2006 act with guidance that is made under section 38 of that act is to provide a quicker, more practical method for drafting, publishing and amending good practice information for the relevant parties.

The provision of up-to-date good practice information is important if we are to support owners and keepers in maintaining the welfare of the animals in their care. In the case of dogs and the purchasing of dogs, ensuring that our good practice information is kept up to date is important in keeping up to date with the new legislation or growing trends in that area. We therefore do not want the code to be subject to a requirement to lay it before Parliament.

Rhoda Grant’s amendment 72 would mean that a revised code would need to be published even if the revisions did not materially alter its effect. The Scottish Government is happy to support that amendment, as it would ensure that the public is made aware of any changes, big or small, to the code.

I move amendment 10.

I can give you details now of how effective those campaigns have been, if you would like to hear about them.

All I can say is that we absolutely accept everything that the bill is trying to do and the purpose behind it, and we have set out as part of the provisions that there will need to be a considerable marketing campaign to ensure that people are aware of it. The fact that the bill was passed at stage 1 will be a light-up moment for what we are trying to do here. As far as the amendments are concerned, we are happy to accept the one that we are supporting—I am just not quite sure that it is necessary for the other amendments to be included in the bill.

At this stage, no, I do not want to create our own database. At this stage, I am very happy to be working with the UK Government. We have had a marked change in the attitude to how things could be developed. In our meeting, the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was very amenable. It is quite clear that the UK Government is very keen on working with us.

Edward Mountain referred to chit-chat. It is not chit-chat. We are having these conversations to progress things in a serious manner. Again, I reiterate that we are taking the idea of a UK-wide database very seriously. We are trying to achieve all the requirements that the members are putting to me, and it would be far better to do that on a UK-wide than a Scotland-only basis.

If we go ahead with these amendments, that will tie up time and resource. It will commit money that could be better spent by using a UK-wide system, which is what we are endeavouring to establish.