Chamber and committees

I am sorry—I could not quite hear all of that. All that I am putting to the committee is that my bill pretty well replicates what is in the existing code of practice under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. In fact, section 6(1) of my bill says:

“A person’s failure to comply with any provision of the code of practice does not of itself make the person liable to proceedings of any sort.”

What is in my bill is almost the same as what is in the existing code of practice—word for word. I do not see what the problem is or how the bill will differ from the existing code of practice, which is in the Scottish Government’s own words. In addition, asking someone to confirm that they understand the consequences of getting a dog—among other questions on the certificate—is a means of ensuring that the acquirer understands the commitment that getting a dog involves. It is important that they understand that.

As with my colleague Rachael Hamilton, my view is that there is no point in the measure if it is nothing. What is in my bill is not to do with perception; it is evidential and not punitive. It is for educational purposes, and it will show that there was engagement between the acquirer and the person transferring the dog when the transfer took place. It will show that they were both committed and had read and understood the wording.

As I said, the measure is not legally binding, but neither was what was in the code of practice. The language is exactly the same. I say right now—because this is a red line for me—that, if the Government’s amendments succeed, I will bring back the provisions at stage 3. I might tweak them a little, but I will be coming back with the same thrust.

On Ariane Burgess’s amendment 4, I am very sympathetic to the role of veterinary surgeons, which is extremely important.

You are on to a hobby-horse of mine, Edward. You have been terribly patient and have waited until the end of the meeting. This is an important issue. I have long thought that we should have a central database for microchipping dogs. It is common sense.

I can draw a comparison with the scheme for dog control notices, which were originally registered only in the relevant council area. That was pretty useless, because people could move their dogs from one place to another. Now we have a Scottish database for dog control notices, so that aspect has been done. I am not saying that it would be as easy to establish a microchipping database. I have no vote on the matter, because I am not a member of the committee, but I would be sympathetic to there being a preliminary review of what we already have.

I notice that, in your amendment 59, subsection (2)(b) of the proposed new section contains a list of what should be covered by such a database. I would also put dog control notices on it, because then there would be, as it were, a biography of each dog: where it came from, who acquired it, the owner, the veterinary practitioners, and whether a dog control notice had ever been issued in relation to it. That would keep people in touch with the information. At the end of the day, it is not dogs or puppies who are to blame for any of the situations that we have been discussing; it is the people who acquire them and have them for the next 15 or 16 years. They can have a wonderful relationship or, at the other end of the scale, it can be dreadful for the animal, and sometimes for the owner—although I must admit that I am more concerned about the animal because it is in the weaker position.

On the UK aspects, I wrote to Lord Douglas-Miller when he was the relevant under-secretary of state. He seemed to be a nice man, by the way; I got a nice letter back from him, dated 15 April 2024, about a UK-wide microchipping database. I will not read the whole letter—I will be happy to let the committee see it later—but I will quote a few words from it:

“We have recently published our response. It was a consultation about a central database ... in which we committed to introducing a single point of search portal. My officials will be discussing with their counterparts in the devolved Administrations the scope to develop the portal on a UK basis.”

That was in April. Since then, we have had a change of UK Government. We know that one Government cannot bind another, but it seems that, in April, that process was already in train. I get the sense that this is about agitating to get some pace and pressure behind the proposal to move it on. I think that Edward Mountain’s amendment is saying that we should first see what we have and what we could improve, and the next step would be to ask how we could put that information into a UK national database.

That was not my question, minister. My question is: does my wording duplicate the wording in the existing code?

This is rather important.

I would like to, if I may, convener, with your leave.

Nobody is creating a criminal offence—that is patently obvious. If I might be quite frank, I think that the problem for the minister is that we are on pretty thin ice here. I am lifting language straight from the existing code of practice, which makes it plain that it

“does not have legislative effect”

but promotes

“examples of good practice.”

If I lift everything else and put it straight into my bill, I do not see the grounds for arguing that I am doing something punitive and something different from what is in an existing code of practice that the Government itself drafted.

Minister, I wonder if you could just let me finish my sentence—I love saying that to a minister.

Someone might be thinking of getting a certain breed of dog. Some breeds might have issues. For example, some dogs have squashed noses and others have been so overbred that they can hardly walk, poor devils. A vet can give advice on that, and even on whether someone’s life circumstances are such that they would be right for a particular breed. I have had many animals, and in my experience vets are excellent and will give good advice.

I like the proposal. I did not think of it myself, so I compliment Ariane Burgess on it. Minister, you should give it a bit of thought, if I might suggest that.

I have finished, but I will let the minister intervene, and then I will say a bit more. That way, it will be an intervention. [Laughter.]

What the minister says is absolutely correct. I confirmed to the committee at stage 1 that I was content to remove part 2 of the bill. It is pretty onerous and a bit clunky, and it could be financially onerous at this time.

That said, as the committee is aware, I am very interested in having a UK-based microchipping database. That would make more sense because, ancillary to that, we could put in it dog control notices and everything else that is relevant to dogs in Scotland. I have no concerns about the deletion of part 2—given that I agreed to it earlier, I could hardly change my mind now—on the basis that we will continue to look at microchipping. We will have a debate on that later, so I will save what I want to say for then.

Indeed. I know that it is hard for ministers, so I am going to be sympathetic here. They have heavy-duty portfolios, but if you do not set yourself a timescale, in tandem with the UK Government, the long grass will just get even longer. I am not saying that the minister can do this on his own; I know that he cannot. What he can do, in his discussions with the UK Government—after all, this is a good egg thing—is to say to the new UK minister, whoever they might be, “Let us get on with this, get our officials together and move towards establishing a UK dog microchipping database.” If people move their animals about the UK, that is probably the best that we could do.

In the meantime, Edward Mountain’s position represents a good first step. We should review what we have just now and see whether it is working and people update it—I am sure that they do not. As I said, I do not have a vote on the matter, but I am pleased that there is momentum behind the proposal for a microchipping database, which I have been pushing for for a long time.

Excuse me for finishing on a frivolous note, but I take it that where a single chicken is kept, as in Edward Mountain’s example, its name does not go into the database and it is simply given a number. However, if it has a name, I would love to hear it. Do not tell me that its name is Hen.

That is me concluded, convener.

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.

That is a dangerous thing to do, but never mind.