 The next item of business is members' business debate on motion 896-0 in the name of Maurice Golden on electric shock training callers in Scotland. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put, and may I ask those who wish to speak in the debate to press the request-to-speak buttons. I call on Maurice Golden to open the debate up to seven minutes, please, Mr Golden. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Be under no illusion, electric shock callers are harmful and must be banned. For that reason, I am delighted to see the SNP have listened to me and the 20,000 other people who signed my petition calling for such a ban. Part of our role in Parliament as an effective opposition is to hold the Government to account, but it is also to influence Scottish Government policy. The Scottish Conservatives have led the way on this issue and the SNP Government have listened. However, this is first and foremost a victory for animal welfare in Scotland, a victory for the countless animal charities, trainers and members of the public who have campaigned for this result. I also want to recognise the cross-party support that this issue has received, with a representative from every party in the Parliament supporting a ban. Mark Ruskell. Mark Ruskell. I thank the member for giving way. I appreciate the work that he has done personally on this issue. Will he also be putting pressure on the Westminster Government to enforce a ban on the sale and distribution of shock callers? Without that, we do not really have a ban in Scotland. Maurice Golden. I will address that point in probably about two and a half minutes, so feel free to come and intervene again if I do not fully explain it, but I am confident that I will. Whilst welcome yesterday's announcement, there is still a need for clarity. We need to know if this is a complete ban applying to all harmful training devices. For example, arguments have been made that those with varying settings might be treated differently. Clarity is also needed on the consultation with animal welfare organisations, a move that I support, which also raises concerns. The SNP's previous electric shock caller consultation initially offered the prospect of a ban only to result in a proposal for regulation. There needs to be clarity on who will be consulted this time, how long the process will last and what will be consulted on. There must be no attempt to use the consultation process to water down the ban using arguments that we sometimes hear, such as shock callers being necessary for deaf dogs when, in fact, non-shock vibrating callers could be used as a viable alternative. Equally, the idea that livestock chase training is a justification for using electric shock callers is refuted by deaf research, showing the effectiveness of positive reinforcement in such training. Significantly, there is a need for clarity on the legal aspect of the ban, notably how courts will enforce it. The guidance to be issued will be advisory and judges will not be bound to take it into account. I welcome the initial thoughts from the cabinet secretary today and further details on the issue in due course. Addressing Mark Ruskell's earlier intervention, we must also consider the issue of banning the import and sale of electric shock callers. Although I believe that the implementation of the guidance that was released yesterday will effectively ban those harmful devices in Scotland, I am supportive of going one step further. That is why I have written to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to urge him to look into the matter. Moreover, my colleague Ross Thomson, a dog owner and dog lover and a former member of this Parliament, has also pledged to lead the efforts in Westminster to ban those harmful devices. However, let us remember why banning those devices is really so important. Those are harmful devices that have no place in dog training. The premise is very simple. Electric shock callers and other electronic pulse training aids work by delivering a shock with the intention that that shock becomes associated with a specific behaviour to deter that behaviour from being repeated. It sounds so reasonable. Strip away the polite sounding description and you are left with the facts that those devices electrocute dogs. It is not right and it is not fair. Unsurprisingly, electrocuting dogs can result in long-term harm. A 2013 study by DEFRA highlighted those negative impacts. One in four dogs trained with those devices showed signs of stress compared with fewer than one in 20 where positive training methods were used. It was also shown that long-term impacts were still present even when the callers were used by professionals trained to industry standards. That last point is particularly significant as regulation of the use of those electric shock callers would not work, even if only allowed by qualified trainers. Instead, we can focus on what does work—rewards-based training. That is already successfully used by many organisations such as Blue Cross, who believe that it is only the only effective approach, or the Dogs Trust, who last year re-homed 1,000 dogs in Scotland using rewards-based training, or Battersea, Dogs and Cats Home, who have some of the most experienced canine behaviourists available and who support using only positive training methods. In fact, they will not re-home an animal with anyone who plans to use adverse training techniques. Those organisations, along with the Kennel Club, the Scottish Kennel Club, the SSPCA, the Animal Behavior and Training Council, Edinburgh Dog and Cats Home and others—too numerous to mention—have been crucial in keeping the issue in the spotlight, and not forgetting the more than 20,000 people who signed my petition. To all of them, I say thank you. We achieved our goal. We made a difference. Now let's make sure that we see that difference delivered. We move to the open debate. Speeches have no more than four minutes, please. I call Christine Grahame to be followed by Colin Smyth. I congratulate Maurice Golden on securing the debate, and indeed Ben Macpherson on his parallel motion. I also advise the chamber, and with your consent, I will have to leave immediately after my contribution as I chair the convener's group at some time around 1 pm. Returning home late last night from a burn supper, I learned that the Scottish Government is now supporting a ban on the use of electronic shock collars. Both Maurice Golden and Ben Macpherson have a new blood here, so I want to pay tribute to Kenny Gibson, who cannot be here because he is chairing a cross-party group, to Alison Johnstone, long-time campaigners like myself, for a ban on the use of electronic shock collars since at least 2011. I also commend Colin Smyth, who has also pursued a ban since he came into Parliament. I would also add, quite apart from all the animal charities, one-kind SSPC, Dogs Trust, the Kennel Club and others, that the cross-party group on animal welfare, which I chair, will welcome that announcement. Indeed, on 8 January, three years ago, I led a member's debate entitled, A Shocking Way to Treat a Dog. I said gently to Maurice Golden that at that time not one Conservative member signed my motion for a ban on the use of electronic shock collars. The Government at that time was not disposed to follow the leader of Wales banning the use since 2010. I therefore welcome not only the Government's change of heart, but the conversion, at least, of some members of the Conservative party, because for me, animal welfare issues in some instances should be matters of individual conscience. I invite Maurice Golden to join the cross-party group on animal welfare as we have more work to do, and we are a very proactive group, as the Cabinet Secretary knows. Now to the nitty-gritty. I know the terms of the Cabinet Secretary's press release and I welcome the guidance, but I know that in Wales the ban on use was secured by regulation. My questions are, which I will read later in the official report. Will that be the route that the Scottish Government takes of choice, and can it be achieved through the Animal and Welfare Scotland Act 2006? The Welsh regulations apply also to cats. I quote from the Welsh regulations, the regulations ban the use of any collar that is capable of ministering an electric shock to a cat or dog. Now, I know that the Cabinet Secretary is very much a cat lover and has one for many years, so I suspect that she will be sympathetic to that. However, if it is my regulation, how long will that take, broadly speaking? That should be faster than going in primary legislation, and if it is not going to be by regulation, what by other means? A standalone bill, a member's bill? Like Maurice Golden, I, too, am afraid, Mr Golden, that there is nothing new near I had an event after debate three years ago, when MSPs were encouraged to try electronic shock collars on their wrists. Only a hue turned up, but I can tell you, and I hope they do this for you, when they did, they were converted on the spot. You see, I've had pets all my adult life, a dog and a series of cats. Believe it or not, as I've said, they are subject to electronic shock collars. I would think no more of using a shock collar on my lovely and indomitable Mr Smoky than on myself, though some might think that the latter wouldn't be a bad idea. Going by pain and not persuasion is just plain wrong. Now that cross-party and government impetus is here, I congratulate again all the petitioners, all the parliamentarians here and in the past who have been in this Parliament who have never given up on banning their use. I thank Maurice Golden for bringing the debate and the Government in particular for undertaking now to see the ban become a reality while I am still here. I call Colin Smith to be followed by Ben Macpherson. I thank Maurice Golden for his motion today. Labour's support for a full-barren electric shock collar is a consistent and long-standing position. There is no place in the 21st century for the use of those barbaric devices. In recent months, it has been a hugely encouraging sight to see more and more MSPs come forward to support that position, a position that I know shared by many members across parties. The evidence that shows those devices cause distress, anxiety and emotional harm to dogs is clear for everyone to see. As is the evidence that the range of highly effective, positive training methods available render those collars needless. If you look at the work of a charity such as Battersea Dogs and Cats Homes, they have been in existence for over 150 years. The dogs that they have cared for and re-homed over 15 decades often displayed the most difficult behaviour, yet they achieve incredible and lasting results of positive and reward-based collars. Not only are there positive alternatives to sending a painful electric current through the neck of a dog to frighten them into obedience more humane and effective, there is a growing body of evidence suggesting that the use of shock collars is counterproductive. It was clear from the answers or rather non-answers that I have received from the Government to a series of written questions that I tabled last year on shock collars that the Government's initial approach to try to regulate such collars not only ignored this evidence, it was frankly unworkable, and the proposal to an effect create a qualification in cruelty for trainers was simply abhorred. Presiding Officer, you cannot regulate cruelty. Therefore, welcome the announcement by the Government yesterday that they now planted ditch that existing policy. The question now is, is the new approach proposed by the Government to issue guidance under the Animal Health and Welfare Scotland Act 2006 strong enough to prevent the full use of shock collars? Under the act, it is an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to an animal or to fail to meet its welfare needs, but at present it would be almost impossible to prosecute on these grounds for using a shock collar. The proposal to issue guidance under the act, stating that the adverse techniques, including shock collars, does add some clarity to the act, but is it strong enough to result in prosecution? Charities such as the Dogs Trust, although welcome in the change of direction by the Government, have understandably said that they would prefer a ban to be introduced under section 26 of the act. A ban using secondary legislation would mean just that, a ban. The proposed guidance from the Government states that a person may be committed in offence of unnecessary suffering if they use a shock collar, but equally they may not be. The onus would remain on the prosecution to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt not just that a collar had been used, but that unnecessary suffering had been caused. That is still a high threshold. I hope that, when we sum it up in the debate, the cabinet secretary will be able to share with the chamber whether she believes that the proposed guidance has the same legal status as, for example, the approach of the Welsh Government, which used secondary legislation to lead the way in the UK by banning the use of shock collars and why guidance is being taken by the Government. If the answer is simply speed, there is no reason why guidance cannot be a temporary measure until a more robust approach through secondary legislation is adopted. I know that many politicians may want to take credit for the Government's welcome change of position on the issue. However, I want to pay tribute to animal welfare charities such as the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, one kind in Blue Cross for the campaigning work that they and their supporters have done to achieve the change. For the outstanding work that they and other charities do, they are advocating for animals on a whole host of issues. There is much still to do. I hope that yesterday's announcement by the Government will signal further changes in policy such as reversing the deeply regrettable decision to lift the ban on tail docking. We have a consultation on the banning of snare-in and we have a commitment to go beyond Lord Bonamy's recommendations and ensure a proper ban on hunting. I hope that we will soon see the proposed legislation raising animal cruelty sentences in line with the campaign by Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and others. If we do see those changes, I can assure the Government that they will have the full support of all Labour MSPs and, more importantly, they will have the full support of the public. Like many others, I firmly believe that electronic shock callers for dogs are inherently cruel and totally unnecessary. I thank Maurice Golden for securing a debate on this very important animal welfare issue. It is great to join with colleagues to welcome the Scottish Government's bold and decisive decision and action yesterday to promptly and effectively ban the use of electric shock callers here in Scotland and also ban other electronic training aids that are capable of causing pain or distress to dogs. As members are aware, this is an issue that I have also been campaigning on recently, together with key animal welfare organisations, including One Kind, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, The Dogs Trust, The Kennel Club, Blue Cross and the Scottish SPCA. I pay tribute to all of their work on the issue to fellow MSPs who have campaigned for change and, in particular, to Christine Grahame, who has been a champion on the issue for some time. However, most of all, I pay tribute to the cabinet secretary for acting responsibly and decisively on the basis of evidence and ethics to make it clear yesterday that causing pain to dogs through inappropriate training methods will not be tolerated here in Scotland and that electric shock callers and other electronic training aids will be banned by the SNP. The Scottish Government has listened to legitimate views and opinions on both sides of the issue. It has taken careful consideration, recognising growing public concerns, that is absolutely my understanding. There is no doubt that the cabinet secretary's announcement yesterday will create a full ban on the use of electronic training devices for dogs here in Scotland, a ban that is prompt, effective and legally robust under guidance being developed under article 38 of the Animal Health and Welfare Scotland Act 2006. In my view, putting my old lawyer hat on, this is an effective way to make sure that it is not unnecessarily vulnerable to judicial review. Members will also be aware that I circulated my own petition and motion on this issue and did not support Maurice Golden's motion. Although I agree with the general call for a ban in Mr Golden's motion and pay tribute to him for that, I was not able to support his wording because it included a significant inaccuracy. With respect, Mr Golden's motion falsely states that Wales has banned the sale of shock callers, when the Welsh Assembly, like the Scottish Parliament, does not have the power to do that. Only the Conservatives at Westminster can now ban the sale of electric shock callers here in Scotland, in Wales and across the UK, because the ability to ban the sale of these cruel devices is fully reserved to Westminster. Therefore, like others have done, I am also calling on the UK Government, together with my Westminster colleagues in particular, Tommy Shepard and Deirdre Brock MP, who lodged an early day motion at Westminster, I am calling on the UK Government to follow Scotland's example and use its reserved powers to ban the sale and distribution of cruel electric shock callers. At the moment, you can buy these cruel devices easily and cheaply, and that needs to stop. It is up to the Westminster Government to step up and do that. In good faith, I welcome and support Mr Golden and other Conservative MSPs who will put pressure on their colleagues and be part of a collective effort to pressurise the Tory UK Government to do the right thing now, because it is time to ban electric shock callers completely across the UK. Mark Ruskell, to be followed by Tom Arthur. I thank you, Presiding Officer, if I can declare an interest as an honorary member of the British Veterinary Association. I join members in also thanking Maurice Golden for bringing this issue to the Parliament ahead of any eruptions that we might have had on this issue in the committee, and I can also thank the cross-party work that has been done in this Parliament for a number of years to build the case against electric shock callers and the fantastic work of the animal charities that we have in Scotland as well. Presiding Officer, I believe that we should avoid punishment when training a dog as it teaches response out of fear. This is bad for its welfare and can cause behavioural problems later in life. Not my words, but the words from the Scottish Government's existing code of practice on the welfare of dogs. I am pleased that the Government has recognised, as the Welsh Government has already, that even a regulated use of electric shock callers is wholly inconsistent with its own approach to animal welfare that is embedded in the current guidance. The evidence shows that punishment does not work. For example, one major behavioural research study that surveyed and filmed owners and dogs found that punishment led dogs to become less playful, less likely to interact positively with a stranger. It also found that dogs trained using a more patient, reward-based approach were more able to learn a novel training task. Punishment affects both a dog's behaviour and its ability to learn. The scientific evidence has built up over the years on e-callers, specifically in the case against them. A university of Utrecht study, for example, showed that dogs, quite unsurprisingly, when subjected to shocks, showed clear signs of stress, fear and pain leading to long-term stress-related behaviour. We have already heard about the recent DEFRA studies that have again reinforced that, showing negative behaviour with the use of e-callers, even when training was conducted by professional trainers using the lighter touch training regimes. There is, of course, a small but vocal lobby of e-collar advocates. I am sure that I have been bombarding members' email inboxes. Just as there was a vociferous lobby of working dog owners who believed that there was a welfare benefit to amputating hundreds of puppy dog tails to prevent the amputation of a single adult dog's tails. There was a point towards the end of last year where the Scottish Government was in danger once again of tying itself up in knots by pandering to this lobby, creating vocational qualifications in the use of aversive training aids, a kind of NVQ in torture. To be honest, I could never really see my local college offering that as a positive destination for school leavers. It is never a viable option. The Government's fresh move to update the guidance, making it clear that aversive techniques can compromise dog welfare, is absolutely the correct approach. It adds clarity and makes it more likely that prosecutions can take place under the Animal Health and Welfare Act. My only question at this point to the cabinet secretary is about the timescale for its introduction. The Scottish Government has acted with the limits of their powers, but it is now vital, as other members have said, that Westminster Government uses its powers to ban the sale and distribution of e-colours. Every time I google the word shock colours, I am bombarded by adverts encouraging me to buy them alongside trainers offering shock services. Public awareness is low and the implications of using e-colours need to be spelled out to responsible pet owners who may be unaware of the evidence and their legal responsibilities. On scrupulous owners and trainers using these devices, it will be incredibly difficult to catch and prosecute without an accompanying ban on the sale and distribution brought in on the same timescale as amendment to guidance. It is a critical point here in terms of the MPs and the lobbying at Westminster. We need to see both Governments moving together. The Scottish Government has set the bar here. The Westminster Government now needs to follow. I hope that pressure can be exerted on a cross-party, genuine cross-party basis to bring this about. Tom Arthur is followed by Finlay Carson. I thank Maurice Golden for bringing this matter to the chamber and congratulating him on securing the debate. I also wish to pay tribute to my friend and colleague Ben Macpherson for his work on the issue. Across the Parliament, we all have a shared view on the matter. Ben's work has helped to refine the argument. I commend the Scottish Government on the action that it has taken, which, having considered the evidence carefully, I agree is the correct position. As Mark Ruskell said, I do not think that there are any others who have not been bombarded by a range of groups with different views. I have taken the opportunity within my surgeries in my office to meet people from both sides of the argument. I was struck by the sincerity of trainers on both sides of the argument. Both are ultimately concerned with the welfare of dogs. Both are concerned with ensuring that dog owners can be responsible dog owners in regard to the people whom I met. The challenge is not in correcting dogs' behaviour when it gets to a stage in which people justify using short callers. It is about preventing dogs' behaviour and getting to that stage. I had an interesting range of submissions. There was one dog owner who had used a short caller on a puppy. The argument that was made was that it helped to quickly address a behavioural problem with the puppy and was far more humane than taking the dog to puppy classes where it would be terrified by 30 other puppies. I should declare an interest as a dog owner myself. One of the most important things that you do with a puppy is socialisation. You engage it with other dogs, you engage it with other human beings. What that spoke to me and said to me was that the great deal of misinformation and misunderstanding exists. The approach has to be about positive methods of training dogs, but it is about early intervention and encouraging responsible ownership. Bying a dog does not just start with collecting the puppy or putting down a deposit. It should start months before with research, understanding the breed and understanding issues relating to the dog, identifying and engaging with reputable breeders. All of that is incredibly important. It is also important, more broadly, because having a preventative approach, a responsible ownership or informed ownership does not only create a situation that initiates the need for short callers, as some people would perceive it. It prevents a whole range of other problems that can emerge. Although short callers cause pain and stress to animals and dogs, there is a range of other activities and issues that emerge that cause a lot more pain and stress. I, Zainas Glynas, a dog owner and my wife and I have a pug, not what one would necessarily think is a dangerous dog and need to have a short call, although capacity to follow around at your feet can be a trip hazard. Pugs are a breed, and nearly every pug that you see can overweight. We know of an obesity crisis in Scotland with pugs. Why is that? It is because people who allow their dogs to become to that weight are not informed about what the welfare of a dog is. The welfare of a dog is not treating it and rewarding it and giving it into the pleading eyes. It is about responsible dog ownership and making sure that the dog is properly exercised and properly fed. That is just one example of what a responsible dog ownership is. My view is that, if we have a culture where more people are responsible dog owners when dogs are puppies, we are not going to have those behavioural problems later in their life. On that basis, I would argue that the Government has made the correct decision, and that the focus for all dog owners and the incredible range of support that is available from dog welfare charities is that, ultimately, they have a solution to all kinds of behavioural problems by not letting them develop in the first place. We have two final open debate contributions. Finlay Carson followed by Ruth Maguire. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would firstly like to congratulate Maurice Golding for securing today's important member's debate. As the Scottish Conservatives spokesman for animal welfare, I welcome the opportunity to speak today on this important issue and condemn the use of electronic shock callers and other pain-based training devices. Electronic shock callers, sometimes described as versive training devices, work by using discomfort or fear to train a dog. Electronic shock callers or ECSs are worn around a dog's neck and work by delivering electric shock either via remote control or delivered automatically to the dog to correct an undesirable behaviour. Those devices do nothing other than inhibit the expression of behaviour by creating a fear response. Dog show behaviour for various reasons. A dog's only way to communicate is by barking, growling or running away. If we try and stop the dog from communicating, we are not addressing why the dog is choosing to express itself as it is, which can sometimes be a fear response to something that it is uncomfortable with. Recent research commissioned by Defra showed that there were significant long-term negative welfare consequences for a proportion of dogs that were trained using those ESCs. One in four dogs showed signs of stress compared to less than 5 per cent of dogs reacting to positive training methods. One in three dogs helped at the first use of an electronic collar and one in four helped at subsequent uses. The research concluded that even when ECSs were used by professionals following an industry set standard, there were still long-term negative impacts on dog welfare. The study also demonstrated that positive reinforcement methods were effective. For example, in treating livestock chasing, which is the most commonly cited justification for their use, particularly in rural Scotland. I do not, for one minute, believe that trainers or dog owners who currently use ECSs do not have any intention of harming their dogs. I believe that it is the exact opposite. They love their dogs as much as anyone else. However, we are now a society that looks far more closely at a relationship with animals. The decision to ban these devices in many ways down to the change in public opinion and attitudes. Indeed, it was just that change in attitude that recently brought about the bill banning wild animals in travelling circumstances, a practice that many years ago would not have raised in eyebrow. However, today it is totally unacceptable to use wild animals for public entertainment. In modern society, to a far greater extent than in the past, we make our arguments with regards to animals not solely on evidence-based science but also on moral grounds. The Scottish Government launched a consultation on banning or regulating the use of electronic training aids at the end of 2015. The consultation covered remote control training collars, anti-bark collars and PET containment fences using either a static electric pulse, sound vibration, water or citronella sprays. An independent survey commissioned by the Kennel Club in 2015 found that 73 per cent of the Scottish public are against the use of electronic shock collars and 74 per cent would support the Government ban. Up till yesterday, the Government was considering some sort of licensing policy based on a qualification that would still have allowed electric collars to be used in some cases. However, I believe that to simply regulate this cruel act is paramount to supporting its use. I am delighted that my colleague Maurice Golden's campaign, and indeed the fact that we are here having this debate today, has brought pressure on the Government and I sincerely hope that evidence and representation made in Maurice's campaign will persuade the Government to introduce appropriate legislation to bring in a total ban. It is still unclear how the ban will be enforced and I welcome some clarification. Deputy Presiding Officer, I would like to thank the many individuals and organisations who provided briefings for this debate, particularly Battersea's dog and cat home and the dogs trust. I look forward to seeing the Government take action to ban these devices in the near future. This outdated method of training needs to be put to rest and awareness of more effective ways to train dogs are endorsed and promoted. The last open debate contribution is to Ruth Maguire. I would like to begin by thanking Maurice Golden for bringing today's important subject of debate to the chamber. MSPs are right across this Parliament who care deeply about animal welfare and will achieve lots if we work together. Of course, the fight against electric shock collars has now been won in Scotland, which I warmly welcome, but it remains to be won in the United Kingdom. Although the motion does not refer to the UK Government's failure to act to date, I welcome today's opportunity to make the case for banning the sale and supply of electric shock collars throughout the UK. Before that, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague, Ben Macpherson, on his own extensive and tireless campaigning on this issue, not least through his online petition, which calls on both the Scottish and UK Government to take what action it can to ban harmful devices. Ben Macpherson deserves a lot of credit for the very welcome shift in policy that was announced by the Scottish Government yesterday, when it made clear that it will introduce an outright ban on electronic training devices that cause pain or distress to dogs. The Scottish Government also deserves credit for the fact that it has clearly listened to, taken on board and responded to people's concerns in its very welcome shift to an outright ban. Both Scotland and Wales have now concluded that the best way to protect animal welfare is to ban electric shock collars, and it is crucial that we now turn our attention towards pressuring the UK Government to use its power to ban the sale and supply of these harmful devices across the UK. The arguments against allowing the sale and supply of electric shock collars are the same as those against allowing their use. Electric shock collars are cruel and they are ineffective. They are bad for animal welfare and they do not work. Taking welfare first, as well as the immediate pain and distress caused by the electric shock, dogs are likely to suffer long-term adverse effects, which mean that future attempts at positive reinforcement-based training are likely to be rendered ineffective. Just as, importantly, evidence from animal welfare charities, as well as the majority of professional trainers, makes clear that the only effective way to train a dog is through positive enforcement. In the interests of both animal welfare and effective training, I wholeheartedly agree with the Dogs Trust that under no circumstances should we condone the use of equipment or techniques that cause pain or fear to train a dog. The no circumstances part is important there because the only way to make clear that adverse training is completely immoral and ineffective is to ensure that it is never used at all and that we need to ban the sale and supply of these devices altogether. Unfortunately, that is something that only the UK Government has the power to do. In the spirit of Maurice Golden's original motion, which condemned electric shock training collars as harmful to a dog's wellbeing and ineffective as training aids, I would like to call on him and his colleagues to use whatever influence they might have with their UK colleagues to urge it to do its part by banning the sale and supply of harmful devices. The Scottish Government has listened and responded, and I hope that the UK Government can demonstrate that it is listening as much as the Scottish Government has to the compelling arguments against electric shock collars and take action as urgently as we have done here in Scotland. Roseanna Cunningham, to respond to the debate, up to seven minutes please, cabinet secretary. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It will be quite clear that the subject of electronic training collars or e-collars is a complex and highly emotive one and a matter of concern to many. There has been deliberation by the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament in previous years as well as conversations taking place in other parts of the United Kingdom. I remind members that the status quo ante is that, both north and south of the border, there has been no regulation of their use at all. That was the starting point and I sought to correct that position even though the formal consultation had come to no consensus on a way forward. The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring the highest standards of welfare for all animals, however finding the most appropriate way forward on the matter of electronic collars has been challenging. Some avenues were and continue to remain closed to this Government, a matter acknowledged by a number of members today, including Maurice Golden himself, Ben Macpherson, Mark Ruskell, Ruth McQuire and possibly others. Those items cannot be cleared from our shelves metaphorically speaking. Following the public consultation in 2015, I did announce plans in the programme for government to tightly control the use of electronic training collars to allow only appropriate use under the supervision of properly qualified dog trainers. That approach was proposed in light of the continuing mixed views on those devices, along with evidence put before me that modern e-collars provide non-painful settings and can be used as part of a balanced training programme. I considered that approach to be a proportionate response to a complex issue. However, the continuing concern about the proposed approach has led me to review those proposals. That is why I have decided not to pursue the initial plan to explore a way of approving trainers to allow the continued use of those collars in targeted circumstances. I know that that will disappoint those owners who genuinely believe that their animals have benefited from those collars and those trainers who have been engaging constructively with officials. I have therefore asked officials to prepare clear Scottish Government guidance reiterating that any physical punishment of dogs causing unnecessary suffering is not acceptable in Scotland and is an offence under the 2006 act. That includes the misuse of electronic collars that administer an electric shock, anti-bark collars and any device that squirts noxious oils or other chemicals or substances into a dog's face or other part of its anatomy. That guidance will be issued under section 38 of the Animal Health and Welfare Scotland Act 2006 and will supplement the existing Scottish code of practice for the welfare of dogs. Draft guidance is already on the Scottish Government website and I recommend that members seek it out. The guidance will make clear that causing unnecessary suffering by the use of such devices is an offence. Together with recommendations in the current code of practice for the welfare of dogs, courts may take into account compliance or non-compliance with the proposed guidance in establishing liability and a prosecution. That guidance will help to support the important work of the front-line enforcement agencies who have the difficult job of dealing with animal welfare problems in Scotland. It will go much further than the current dog welfare code in England, and I think that most people would accept that. It will also address wider concerns about training devices and methods than are dealt with by the legislation in Wales, where I need to caution members that that has resulted in only one prosecution since it was brought in. There are bigger and more difficult questions around all of that. The draft guidance will no doubt be the subject of further discussion with welfare organisations, particularly those involved in the practicalities of enforcing animal welfare legislation, and I, in particular, encourage the SSPCA to be involved. Consultation is now live—I think that it was Maurice Golden who raised issues about the timescales for this. I can advise that consultation is now live and comments are invited by 14 February. We will then consult the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee before finalising the wording. The intention is to move as quickly as is reasonably possible on this particular issue. In the near future, I hope to issue similar guidance on other dog welfare issues, such as the purchase of illegally bred or imported puppies and the breeding of dogs, with extreme confirmations that lead to chronic suffering because of difficulty breeding, walking or giving birth. I suspect that Tom Arthur's beloved pugs may come into the category of animal where that has become a very significant problem. I just wanted to respond to Christine Grahame, who unfortunately has had to leave to chair another meeting. The guidance at present does not cover cats. I am happy to consider similar guidance in due course, although I caution members that electronic callers for cats tend to be used for boundary fence systems, which I think were raised by Finlay Carson, rather than training. That issue in itself raises different and more complicated issues in respect of electric fencing. I think that we just need to be a little careful that we understand that cats are in a different category in this particular debate. I think that I have probably dealt with most of the specific issues that were raised. I will conclude, albeit a little early, that I am convinced that issuing timely guidance under section 38 of the 2006 legislation will be an effective, practical and immediate way of addressing the legitimate and widespread welfare concerns about collar use in Scotland. Introducing those measures will address the issue of electronic callers as quickly as we possibly can, practically, proportionately and crucially with the powers that are available to us. That concludes the debate, and I suspend the meeting until 2.30 pm.