Chamber and committees

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.

I welcome the amendments in this group, which will improve and strengthen the bill.

Amendment 6 agreed to.

I will move amendment 7 and speak to the other amendments in the group. Amendment 7 would delete the phrase “to keep as a pet”, amendment 9 would delete the word “pet” and amendment 56 would leave out the term “as pets”.

On reflection, the stage 1 debate made it clear to me that there could be a loophole or confusion if I tried to make a definitive difference between a working dog and a pet. We all know that some dogs are working dogs, such as dogs for the blind, police dogs, shepherding dogs and hearing dogs for the deaf. That is clear, but there are categories where there could be crossover. To include all dogs is not to malign or in a way criticise people who employ and acquire working dogs. I know that those people are very thorough in what they do. The issue is that there could be a loophole and that somebody could claim, “Mines is a working dog,” when, in fact, it is a pet.

The change will make it easier for everyone. There cannot be any dispute, because it is just a dog. In many cases, those who acquire working dogs do what is needed anyway, so there is no harm to them. The changes are not in any way an attempt to criticise those people. They have dogs that have to earn their keep, as it were, so they know about the breeding and where the dogs have come from. The convener, Mr Fairlie and Mr Mountain are farmers, so they know what I am talking about.

The bill will be simpler if it refers simply to dogs and not to pets. I hope that I have won your heart with that, Mr Mountain.

I move amendment 7.

I agree, but that is not the point. You cannot do that in this bill, but then we could—