Section 6 — Disqualification orders

Part of Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3 – in the Scottish Parliament at 4:30 pm on 13 February 2002.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of David Mundell David Mundell Conservative 4:30, 13 February 2002

I listened carefully to what Sylvia Jackson said and I have spoken to the SSPCA. The SSPCA is an important organisation, but that does not necessarily mean that it is right. Parliamentarians must make the decisions. Too often in this debate, matters have been focused on as a result of briefings and members have not considered the issues for themselves. Accordingly, I oppose amendment 78, which is far too draconian.

Amendment 19 seeks to clarify the drafting of section 6(1). Arrangements that are made for dogs are not necessarily permanent. I do not accept what Sylvia Jackson said about the amendment. On amendment 20, the word "disposal" ultimately implies final disposal and should not be in the bill either.

Amendment 21 is important in that it seeks to ensure that the will of Parliament is not changed by the fact that people will face costs for the keeping of their dogs that greatly exceed the amount that they could be fined. The minister said that the Executive is conscious of costs. I am sure that Mr Wallace and everybody in the criminal justice system is conscious of costs. I lodged amendment 21 so that the Parliament's will in respect of fines would be upheld.