Seòmar agus comataidhean

The First Minister referred to the Public Petitions Committee, which, in 2003, said:

“The proper way is to get a full public and independent inquiry ... We support the petition 100 per cent and will now refer it to the Health and Community Care Committee with our strongest recommendation that it support a full public inquiry.”—[Official Report, Public Petitions Committee, 18 March 2003; c 2994.]

I chaired the Health Committee in 2003. We tried to push for that but failed, and it took another 20 years, which is a disgrace.

Apologies are one thing; responsibility is another, but it is not enough. Does the First Minister agree that, where deliberate delay, obfuscation or downright cover-up is evident, prosecution should and must follow without delay, and does he agree that that would deliver even better justice for the victims and survivors?

Will the minister visit Galashiels in the heart of my constituency to see the significant measures that have been put in place on public transport by bus and train, as well as the improvements that have been made to pavements, to increase accessibility to tourist destinations, such as the great tapestry of Scotland, for people with mobility challenges? To my cost, I am learning about such challenges—temporarily, I hope.

One of the issues is the self-employed. It is different if there is an employer, because an employer has a duty of care, so he or she, or the company, has a liability. The issue is where self-employed people might be trying to cut costs—which I understand—when they take on jobs. Like my man on his ladder, they might think, “Well, I’ll just do it, because the scaffolding would put another big bill on it.” How do we get through to the self-employed, who might also not be reporting what happens to them?

I congratulate Clare Adamson on securing the debate, which is timeous during national no falls week.

I have entitled this speech “Ladder-related myths”, to which I will shortly come. Like the previous speaker, I have observed from my experience the different safety precautions that tradesmen who are working on my house take. For example, every so often, the house—in common with many—requires sprucing up by way of painting, not just doors and so on, but the rones and gutters. I have a two-storey cottage, and there is also the solid-roof conservatory with its doubled-glazed glass roof.

Previously, my regular painter, who is self-employed, dealt with those tasks with only ladders. Like a trapeze artist, he tippy-toed across the wooden spine of the conservatory while I watched anxiously, lest my very own Humpty-Dumpty fell through that glass roof. Maybe he, too, realised retrospectively that it was a bit foolhardy, or at least that he was too old for the ladder routine, so the next time that I called him, he put me on to a colleague, who insisted on scaffolding. I was relieved—it put another thousand pounds on the job, but I would rather that than somebody falling through the roof.

Over the next two weeks, I was entertained as fit young men swung about the scaffolding, and I knew that they, and my glass roof, would——in that order of importance—remain intact. In researching this speech—I did research it—I found a whole list of ladder-related myths. That is a phrase that I never thought that I would use in Parliament, but here are a few of those myths.

The first myth is that the HSE has banned the use of ladders on building sites. That is not the case. Ladders and stepladders can be a sensible and practical option. They can be used for work at height when the use of other work equipment is not justified because of the low risk or short duration: no more than 30 minutes at a time.

Myth 2 is that you need to be formally qualified before using a ladder at work. No, you do not—you need to be competent. That means that you have the necessary skills, knowledge and experience to use a ladder properly for the work that you will carry out, or, if you are being trained, that you work under the supervision of someone who can perform the task competently.

Myth 3 is that you are working at height if you walk up and down a staircase at work—I do not give that much space. No, you are not—work at height does not include walking up and down a permanent staircase in a building.

Myth 4 is that you need to have two feet and one hand on a stepladder at all times when you are carrying out a task. That is not true either. When you need to have both hands free for a brief period to do a job using a stepladder, such as putting a box on a shelf, hanging wallpaper or installing a smoke detector on a ceiling, you need to maintain three points of contact at the working position. That is not just two feet and one hand; it can be two feet and your body.

Myth 5—the last myth—is that the HSE has banned the use of ladders to access scaffolds and that you will be fined if you ignore that ban. That is not true either. Ladders can be used for access as long as they are of the right type, a suitable grade of industrial ladder, in good condition and effectively secured to prevent movement.

There you go—those are five ladder-related myths.

Although I have treated the subject with something of a light touch, it is a very serious business, as my colleague Clare Adamson aptly described. As she indicated, the sensible use of ladders is important not only in the workplace but in people’s own homes, when they are using them by themselves.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect to the app, but I would have voted no.

I was interested to hear the minister’s response to Fergus Ewing regarding businesses. In the interests of making progress, I invite the minister to visit Dryden Aqua in my constituency, which has never previously been visited. It is a profitable and eco-friendly glass recycling company that grinds down bottles into particles to replace sand filters in, for example, swimming pools, thereby significantly reducing chlorine oxidation. There are existing glass recycling facilities in Scotland; the minister could visit those first.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have considered that. Like the minister, I appreciate that there are good people—such as farmers, the police and the owners of guide dogs for the blind—who own working dogs that are not casually purchased or acquired. However, following consideration, I appreciate that there could be a loophole and that someone could say that a dog is a working dog and not a pet, when it is in fact a pet. I will seriously consider any Government amendments to make the bill apply to all dogs.