Before I go any further, I remind members of my entry in the members’ register of interests. I am a farmer and part of a farming partnership. I am also a dog owner and have recently registered puppies. I am an honorary member of the British Veterinary Association.

I will speak to amendment 59 and I will move it for three really good reasons, which I am sure that everyone will find easy to support. First, what I have proposed is good for dogs and their welfare. It would also allow the Government to carry out some post-legislative scrutiny, and it would help to address the issue of dog theft, which is subject to a separate bill that another member has proposed.

I am sure that I do not need to remind the minister that the rules for microchipping were introduced in 2016. Now, eight years on, we do not know whether microchipping works. There is a requirement to microchip a puppy at eight weeks, and owners are supposed to update the information when a dog is moved, an owner changes their address or telephone number, or the dog is sold or given to another owner. We are pretty sure that that does not happen across the country. There are thousands of strays every year that are not properly recorded on a database. I am sure that the minister will say that there are 12 properly accredited databases in Scotland, which he would be right about, and there are 22 databases across the United Kingdom. Which database is being checked, which one is being kept up to date, and which is the proper one to use?

When we are farming, we have a simple situation: we have ScotEID, where we record our animals on a database and every animal has a passport. We know where the animals are and we know their history. Now, the Government has produced a poultry register. If you have one chicken at home that is scratching around your door, you must register it and record it on a database that the Government keeps. Everyone in the countryside is used to doing that with animals and we also do it if we have a car, because we have a responsibility to keep the V5C up to date and to record any changes.

I suggest that the Government should think carefully about its 2016 legislation and should consider whether it is working. I have asked the Government to review it and to check whether microchipping and the database are working properly and I have said that it should consult breeders, acquirers and owners of dogs as well as consulting veterinary practitioners.

I know that it is a step too far for some people, but I believe that vets should check dogs that come into their practice to ensure that they are properly microchipped and that the person who has brought the dog in is the correct owner. That might be a step too far for now, but I believe that it should come in due course.

Amendment 59 is a simple one. It puts an onus on the Government to check that the legislation that it brought in in 2016 is working correctly, is effective and is doing what it is meant to do, which is to look after the welfare of dogs. I do not see what people dislike about that, but I suspect that the minister is going to tell me.

I move amendment 59.

So recommendation 51 has been ignored, then, by definition.

I take you to recommendation 53, on the relocation of fish farms where it is clear that they are a problem. How many planning applications has Highland Council received, considered and actioned for the relocation of fish farms because they are a problem at their existing site?

I will concentrate on two recommendations in the report that the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee produced in 2018. Recommendation 51—which I am sure you will know off the top of your head, Mark, but just to remind you if you do not—was that the Scottish Government should undertake a strategic spatial planning exercise, taking into account all the affected areas. That recommendation should have been carried out. Has it been carried out? Do you use that in making your planning decisions?

Will the minister take an intervention?

Sorry, but who—

Thank you, convener. You are suggesting that my amendment 59, which calls for a review, should be rejected on the basis of an informal conversation with one member of a devolved Administration and no conversations with any members of the UK Administration. Do you think that the basis for your approach—some chit-chat at a meeting—will fly with people?

That is a very interesting question—of course, I cannot answer it because I am not privy to all the papers, but that is why it is entirely apposite for the minister to commit to amendment 59, which would require the Government to action something within three years. I struggle, as I sit here, to understand why he is reticent to do so—

Yes, I will.

The minister is reticent about preparing the way for a change to the 2016 legislation on microchipping.

Of course I will allow you in, Ms Harper.

I will give way in just a minute, minister.

If the Scottish Government is going to change the 2016 legislation on microchipping to create one central database, that will require subordinate legislation, minister, and I would be very surprised if the committee that considered that did not look at whether you had carried out any consultation.

I give way to the minister.