Chamber and committees

I have absolutely no idea. Think of Covid. Who knows what might happen? There could be any number of reasons why a code could not be concluded within the 12-month period. The proposal allows us flexibility if something does happen. We fully expect to have it done well within the 12-month period, but the proposal is a security, just to make sure.

I assure members that we consider it highly unlikely that it will be necessary to use that power, and we fully expect that the code of practice will be developed, consulted on and come into effect well within the 12-month period after royal assent, should the bill be passed. However, it is only prudent to be prepared for any unforeseen complications and to avoid having to then consider returning to primary legislation to extend the deadline, should that become necessary.

Finlay Carson’s amendments 61 and 62 would require the code to be laid before Parliament for approval and would remove any timescale for preparing the code. The Scottish Government’s main reason for the commitment to replace codes of practice that were made under section 37 of the 2006 act with guidance that is made under section 38 of that act is to provide a quicker, more practical method for drafting, publishing and amending good practice information for the relevant parties.

The provision of up-to-date good practice information is important if we are to support owners and keepers in maintaining the welfare of the animals in their care. In the case of dogs and the purchasing of dogs, ensuring that our good practice information is kept up to date is important in keeping up to date with the new legislation or growing trends in that area. We therefore do not want the code to be subject to a requirement to lay it before Parliament.

Rhoda Grant’s amendment 72 would mean that a revised code would need to be published even if the revisions did not materially alter its effect. The Scottish Government is happy to support that amendment, as it would ensure that the public is made aware of any changes, big or small, to the code.

I move amendment 10.

I can give you details now of how effective those campaigns have been, if you would like to hear about them.

All I can say is that we absolutely accept everything that the bill is trying to do and the purpose behind it, and we have set out as part of the provisions that there will need to be a considerable marketing campaign to ensure that people are aware of it. The fact that the bill was passed at stage 1 will be a light-up moment for what we are trying to do here. As far as the amendments are concerned, we are happy to accept the one that we are supporting—I am just not quite sure that it is necessary for the other amendments to be included in the bill.

At this stage, no, I do not want to create our own database. At this stage, I am very happy to be working with the UK Government. We have had a marked change in the attitude to how things could be developed. In our meeting, the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was very amenable. It is quite clear that the UK Government is very keen on working with us.

Edward Mountain referred to chit-chat. It is not chit-chat. We are having these conversations to progress things in a serious manner. Again, I reiterate that we are taking the idea of a UK-wide database very seriously. We are trying to achieve all the requirements that the members are putting to me, and it would be far better to do that on a UK-wide than a Scotland-only basis.

If we go ahead with these amendments, that will tie up time and resource. It will commit money that could be better spent by using a UK-wide system, which is what we are endeavouring to establish.

I am sorry, but I cannot hear you.

Will the member take an intervention?

Will the member take an intervention?

I am pleased that Christine Grahame has lodged amendments 7, 9 and 56, which remove the qualification that the code applies when a dog is acquired to keep as a pet. As highlighted by the committee at stage 1, that could become a loophole for unscrupulous breeders. I urge members to support the amendments.

Amendment 7 agreed to.

Amendment 8 moved—[Jim Fairlie]—and agreed to.

Amendment 9 moved—[Christine Grahame]—and agreed to.

The amendments in the group seek to leave out sections 8 to 11 of the bill, which contain the powers to make regulations about the registration of litters, and consequentially to remove references to part 2 from the bill and its long title.

The Scottish Government is pleased that the committee agreed at stage 1 that part 2 of the bill should be removed. I understand that the member in charge of the bill accepts that on the clear understanding that we will continue working with the other Great Britain Administrations to explore improvement of the existing compulsory dog microchipping legislation, and particularly the potential for a single point of access to all dog microchip records to be created across GB and for details of dog breeders to be permanently recorded.

The existing powers to establish registration schemes under section 27 of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 mean that new primary legislation is not needed to allow us to introduce that registration if circumstances change in the future.

I move amendment 34.

The amendments address the concern that arose during stage 1 that the bill could be misconstrued as creating a direct legal obligation for the acquirer to create, sign and keep the certificate and to show it to a police officer or inspector if requested. The intention is to make clear that section 4 details what the code of practice must include in relation to the certificate, which we otherwise fully support, but that section 4 does not in itself impose any direct legal obligations on the acquirer or the supplier of a dog.

As the bill does not provide for any sanctions or penalties in the event that a person does not comply with sections 2 to 4, those provisions cannot be enforced directly in practice. I understand that that was the intention when the bill was introduced, and it is recognised in the policy memorandum, which states that the intention is

“to achieve behavioural change, without placing formal legal obligations on the parties involved”.

If amendments 45 and 46 are agreed to, failing to complete and hold a certificate may still be relevant to establishing a liability, as set out in section 6, for the other provisions of the code of practice and it could be taken into account by the relevant enforcement authorities when considering further action under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 or regulations made under that act in individual cases where owners have acted irresponsibly.

The amendments will, however, avoid any misunderstanding or unnecessary anxiety for otherwise law-abiding and responsible owners who might misplace their certificate and be concerned that simply failing to retain a completed certificate to show to a police officer or an inspector would in itself be an offence that could lead to a prosecution.