Chamber and committees

I thank the convener for explaining the purpose of his amendments.

I cannot agree that amendment 75 is necessary, though, as it is the Scottish Government’s intention to have a renewed publicity campaign to raise awareness of the proposed code. That will be essential in educating the public about the unscrupulous breeding and selling of dogs, the criminality behind the illegal trade and other serious welfare issues that can arise when acquiring a puppy.

Previous marketing campaigns have already carefully considered the target demographic of prospective dog buyers, and the Scottish Government wants to keep the flexibility to develop awareness campaigns in the most appropriate and cost-effective way, in conjunction with the main animal welfare organisations, without detailed requirements of that sort being specified in the bill. Although I understand the intention behind the proposal and agree that raising the awareness of children and young people is important, I think it preferable to leave the decisions about how campaigning should be targeted to the marketing professionals in that area. I therefore cannot support amendment 75 and ask the member not to press it.

I am, however, happy to support Mr Carson’s amendment 76, particularly as previous campaigns on which we have worked with relevant stakeholders, including the Scottish SPCA, have proved successful in raising public awareness.

As for Ariane Burgess’s amendment 5, section 7 of the bill already includes a duty on Scottish ministers to

“take reasonable steps to ensure public awareness and understanding of the code of practice.”

As it is the Scottish Government’s view that taking reasonable steps would, by implication, include ensuring that suitable resources were available, the amendment is unnecessary.

We expect that publicising the new code will require a significant public awareness-raising campaign, ideally with co-ordinated messaging from the main welfare organisations and enforcement agencies, and we will work with the stakeholder organisations to consider the most effective way of doing so. I hope that that reassures Ariane Burgess, and I ask her not to move her amendment.

As I have said, we have all the facts and figures on how effective those campaigns have been, but just to pick up on one of the things that you just said, I would point out that, during the deliberations on the bill, we all accepted that the bill, in itself, would not eradicate our problems with puppy trades. The previous stuff will not eradicate the problems that we have had with puppy trades, either. This will be an on-going process, because criminals will always find a way to try to get around the law.

I am sorry, but I am struggling to hear you. Could you go closer to your mic?

Yes.

I completely understand the logic behind amendment 75, and I can see where the member wants to go with it but, rather than put that measure in the bill, would it not be better to leave to others the decision on where the marketing happens? The committee’s stage 1 report asked the Scottish Government

“to maximise its marketing expertise”.

We should allow the marketing to be done by the people who know how to do it, rather than the committee.

Either.

Will the member take an intervention?

The amendment that you are talking about would impose a specific new approach. It has not been consulted on in any detail during the progress of this bill, and it raises a lot of complex issues that would require much more detailed consideration. This bill was never intended as a vehicle for a microchip database reform in the first place; it is not the place in which to do that. However, we are already working on getting the UK Government’s co-operation on that.

Again, I push back on the idea that we are simply having friendly chit-chats. I reiterate that we are restarting the monthly meetings between the Scottish Government and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which have been sorely missed, given the previous UK Administration’s reticence to engage. Those meetings are starting tomorrow—the new Government is engaging with us, which will allow us to take the UK system forward.

I reiterate that this is not the bill in which to introduce new legislation on microchipping. It is a bill on the welfare of dogs, and we are addressing the issues stage by stage. I think, therefore, that the amendments that we are discussing are not in the right place.

The amendments in this group concern the scope of the code of practice. Amendment 6 will make a minor clarification to avoid any unnecessary confusion about the scope of the code. The code should apply to all persons in the legal sense, whether individual people or legal entities such as companies and partnerships. The present wording, which includes the phrase “for people”, might be taken as restricting the meaning to natural persons only, so it is proposed that “for people” be removed to avoid any uncertainty.

Amendments 8, 18, 29 to 31, 35 and 37, which are in my name, will standardise the terminology that is used in the bill by making it refer to “transferring” a dog rather than the mix of terms that are currently included in the bill.

Amendment 17 defines “transferring” as including

“selling, giving away, exchanging, bartering or arranging for the long term loan or long term fostering of a dog”.

That is an inclusive definition, so any arrangement that would in effect be a transfer of a dog would be caught by the code of practice. Again, that is aimed at preventing people from arguing that they are not covered by the code.

I move amendment 6.