Chamber and committees

Is that an issue that you would take into consideration?

You mentioned NatureScot earlier. Do you, as a council and planning authority, think that you have access to sufficient guidance on how proposed sites or expansions might interact with priority marine features and marine protected areas? Do you get enough robust advice from NatureScot? Does NatureScot have a strong enough role in the planning process?

I will bring in Rachel Shucksmith on that issue, too. I know that she is not from a planning authority, but I would love to get her opinion.

The purpose of my amendment is to prompt prospective owners to register a new dog with a vet practice. Regular vet check-ups are a key part of responsible dog ownership, from puppyhood to old age. Vets also 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. It might be possible to identify other puppies at the practice from the same litter or breed and raise concerns.

From what you are saying, my sense is that it would give us more confidence if the minister could take steps forward on the microchipping work at UK level and bring that back to us before stage 3 so that we are certain that something is going ahead.

Do you know why that change was made? Why did SNH move away from giving local steers?

Mark, you have been named.

Great. That was very helpful. Ronan, I am not going to ask you—

The REC Committee recommended that we need to do something about the issue, and it seems to me that we are not getting anywhere on recommendation 9.

Ronan O’Hara talked about Crown Estate Scotland having sustainability reporting obligations. What does CES think about the fact that it is a landlord—or a seabedlord—to companies that have a business that brings about a high level of mortality and suffering?

Amendment 2 would add an additional requirement that a person who is acquiring a dog must seek its existing health records and the contact details of the vet practice that it is registered with. Confirmation of that would be included on the certificate. Amendment 2 is similar to amendment 1 in that it would ensure that the importance of on-going veterinary care is reflected in the code of practice, and it would increase the chances of a prospective new owner being fully informed of any pre-existing health or behavioural conditions. If a seller cannot provide that information, it should be recognised as a clear red flag.

Amendment 3 would strengthen the requirement on both the supplier and the acquirer to provide contact information, requiring an email address and phone number in addition to the postal address. That would enhance the traceability of the breeder or original owner and the new owner. Of the 10.6 million dogs in the UK, only 33 per cent were acquired from professional breeders, and a vast majority came from online sellers. My amendment recognises that many dog adverts are online and many of the subsequent transactions take place online. The code of practice should reflect the fact that we are living in a digital age. I have had discussions with the SSPCA, which has highlighted the need to recognise that dogs are increasingly being advertised online.

I take Rhoda Grant’s point, and I take the minister’s point on amendment 3 with regard to the detail that will be developed. However, I also take on board Christine Grahame’s comment that there is merit in the health records being connected to the transaction, so I press amendment 2.

Amendment 2 agreed to.