Seòmar agus comataidhean

If somebody says to me, “Ms Grahame, I am going to pay you such and such at the 2018 amount and the interim position is that that will be fixed for 12 years”, that is the position. You are saying to me that, if the Government gets more money, people might get more than that, but that is not what the law will say. The law will say that it should be 2018 rates.

Please.

I think that I am right, then. There would have to be another regulation to change the rate.

That is all that I wanted to know.

I had another question. Why does it take six years?

All that concerns me is providing clarity. If the minister is saying that the rate could be changed earlier, perhaps there should be a different phrase before “2030”—perhaps “not beyond” or whatever. I do not know. I just raise that as a concern.

On the Government’s amendments, the code of practice and the associated certificate are not legally binding.

It will help the committee if I quote the existing code of practice for the welfare of dogs. The second paragraph of the preface says:

“Generally, there is a duty to comply with legislation. Although the Code does not have legislative effect, it is intended to promote and give examples of good practice.”

Here is the killer line:

“Failure to comply with a provision of this Code, whilst not an offence in itself, may be relied upon as tending to establish liability where a person has been accused of an offence under Part 2 of the Act.”

The next sentence says:

“Equally, compliance with a provision of the Code may be relied upon as tending to negate liability by a person in any proceedings for an offence under Part 2 of the Act.”

Without trying to be too boring, I note that section 6(2) of my bill says:

“In any proceedings for a relevant offence—

(a) failure to comply with a relevant provision of the code of practice may be relied on as tending to establish liability, and

(b) compliance with a relevant provision of the code of practice may be relied on as tending to negative liability.”

That is lifted straight from the previous code of practice, so I do not see the problem. All that my bill does is replicate the existing code of practice. The issue is evidential and has nothing to do with perception.

Let me make progress, and I will answer the minister’s questions, too.

The minister says quite rightly—indeed, I moaned about this before to the previous Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee when it carried out post-legislative scrutiny of members’ bills—that a member’s bill gets the air of publicity when it is introduced and when it passes. Then it is left on the shelf. My view is that, in a democratic Parliament, all bills are equal once Parliament has passed them. Therefore, a member’s bill—not just mine, but any member’s bill that passes in the Parliament—should have the resources and the publicity that the Government would give to its own legislation on, say, minimum unit pricing, or to UK bills on not drinking and driving.

Obviously, the Government must consult the various charities and so on, but I would be looking at who our audience was and whom we would be targeting. We would be targeting people who click a button and see a nice wee puppy, rather like the one that I have on the picture I am holding up. He is a charming wee thing, and that is why I am against it. You never see any wrecks—you are never shown dogs that are not pretty. People see pretty dogs online. They spend longer buying a handbag; a man would spend longer buying a pair of trainers. They see the dogs and think, “Oh, that’s lovely.” The bill’s purpose is to make them reflect and ask where the puppy is from and why they are in the car park looking at one, thinking “If I do not get that dog, it will perish.” The fact is that, if they buy it out of a crate, another puppy will come off the production line to be miserable and fill its place.

I am content to go with the Government on what should be in the bill on this issue, but my point about publicity—I have been banging on about this for ages—is that I expect appropriate publicity for all members’ bills, and that we should not just tell people about them when they are passed by Parliament or if something controversial happens. I know that there are police officers who do not know about the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010, which I brought through. I imagine that Emma Harper is aware of police officers who do not know about her member’s bill, because it was not a Government one. To me, all bills are of equal merit once Parliament passes them.

The situation is not the minister’s fault, but I have made the point to previous ministers. My message to the Government is that I want to see a change in the culture of publicising all members’ bills, and not just mine.

On the Government’s amendments, the code of practice and the associated certificate are not legally binding.

It will help the committee if I quote the existing code of practice for the welfare of dogs. The second paragraph of the preface says:

“Generally, there is a duty to comply with legislation. Although the Code does not have legislative effect, it is intended to promote and give examples of good practice.”

Here is the killer line:

“Failure to comply with a provision of this Code, whilst not an offence in itself, may be relied upon as tending to establish liability where a person has been accused of an offence under Part 2 of the Act.”

The next sentence says:

“Equally, compliance with a provision of the Code may be relied upon as tending to negate liability by a person in any proceedings for an offence under Part 2 of the Act.”

Without trying to be too boring, I note that section 6(2) of my bill says:

“In any proceedings for a relevant offence—

(a) failure to comply with a relevant provision of the code of practice may be relied on as tending to establish liability, and

(b) compliance with a relevant provision of the code of practice may be relied on as tending to negative liability.”

That is lifted straight from the previous code of practice, so I do not see the problem. All that my bill does is replicate the existing code of practice. The issue is evidential and has nothing to do with perception.

I thank Rachael Hamilton.

As the committee knows, at stage 1, I took the position that it was important to have a separate, stand-alone, simple code that related to the acquisition of a dog or a puppy. The difference between such a code and the existing code is that the existing code is for people who already have a dog. My proposed code represents a pre-emptive strike to make sure that people have taken account of all the welfare and accommodation issues in advance of proceeding to acquire a dog. Therefore, I do not support what Rachael Hamilton is proposing.

I have an ancillary comment. The existing code is 36 pages long, so it is pretty cumbersome. I say, with respect, that I do not think that many people will have read it. If they have read it, I think that they will have done so after they have got a dog. The code that I am looking to introduce will be on one side of A4 and will be written in simple language; it will not be complicated. I want people not to desist from reading it because it has too many pages, and to have a look at it in advance of getting a dog. Although it will be written in a similar style to the existing code, it will, I hope, be a very easy read, as it will use straightforward, conversational language. I know that that is not mentioned in my bill at the moment; we will come on to that later. I want my proposed code to be written in conversational language so that people can understand in simple terms what they will be taking on if they get a dog. That is in the best interests of the dog or puppy and, indeed, the potential owner.

Obviously, I reject Rachael Hamilton’s wrecking amendment, which would completely take my bill out of the picture.

The minister says that the amendments that he has lodged—a substantial number of them—offer flexibility, but I think that they water things down a bit. Amendment 10, for example, would delete “giving effect to” and substitute it with “must have regard to”. To me, that is not offering flexibility. You could call it flexibility, but it gives an awful lot more leeway to the Government than “giving effect to”, which is about actually doing what the legislation says. Similarly, in changing “must” to “may”, amendment 11 is a change from making something mandatory to making it discretionary. To me, that is not flexibility—that is weakening the legislation. Therefore, I do not accept those amendments.

Amendment 15 will change the six-month period to 12 months. I am not happy about it, but, if I have a consideration and an undertaking from the minister that it will be “up to” 12 months, I will not go to the wall about it. What is six months between friends if it is changed to seven months, let us say, because it is “up to” 12 months? I will be keeping an eye on that timescale.

To Finlay Carson I say that I am relaxed about what the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee wants to do—whether it is a case of affirmative or negative procedure. It is expert in this area, so it is a matter for that committee at the end of the day. I do not have any issues with that, as I think I said previously to you.

To Rhoda Grant I say that I accept amendments 64, 67, 68 and 70, which change the phrasing to “must”, making it mandatory—I am sorry; I think that I have jumped over a group. I knew that I would go astray. I think that I have missed one. I am just checking to make sure that I have not missed speaking to something that I intended to speak about while I have the chance.

No, I think that that is it—my apologies, convener. Thank you very much.