Seòmar agus comataidhean

I move to Rachel Shucksmith. The Marine Conservation Society told the committee that the regional marine plans in the Clyde and in Shetland have been delayed for years. What effect could a lack of marine planning potentially be having on those areas?

I have a quick follow-up question. You are saying, in a way, that you might agree with John Goodlad, chair of the salmon interactions working group, who said that it would be easier for the consenting regime to be “attuned to being flexible”, and to allow fish farms to move offshore away from the mouth of the river. Currently, are the regional marine plans flexible enough, and how do they fit in with the national marine plan?

Amendment 60 would require the 2010 code of practice for the welfare of dogs, which was introduced under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, to include the animal welfare good practice that people should follow when acquiring a dog or transferring a dog to another person.

The 2010 code of practice for the welfare of dogs is centred on five areas: the need for a suitable environment; the need for a suitable diet; the need to be able to exhibit normal behavioural patterns; any need to be housed with, or apart from, other animals; and the need to be protected from suffering, injury and disease.

As currently drafted, the bill will create a new and separate code of practice alongside the existing code. As noted by the Law Society of Scotland, that could create a risk of

“overlap or contradiction between the existing code of practice”

and the one that is

“envisaged under the Bill.”

Amendment 60 seeks to minimise any potential confusion among the public by incorporating the proposed code into the existing one. An amendment to that effect was suggested when the Dogs Trust told us during committee proceedings that it was

“really keen on there being streamlining, so that there is one code of practice, if possible”.

The Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals stated:

“Having multiple documents is not an easy way of proving that somebody has managed to grasp all that knowledge if they are required to look at various sources of information. Our plea is to keep it simple and update or revise the existing code, because it would be better from a practical point of view to prove whether a person should have had that knowledge as part of an investigation.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 20 September 2023; c 10, 13.]

Moreover, as currently drafted, section 6 of the bill makes it clear that a breach of the new code would not be an offence in and of itself. Amendment 60 would provide for improved practical enforcement through the existing 2010 code in relation to animal welfare investigations.

Amendments 63, 65, 66, 71, 73, 74 and 77 are the relevant consequential amendments to amendment 60. They would remove all sections of the bill that would create a new and separate code.

Although my favoured option is for the code of practice to be incorporated into the 2010 code—for that to happen, it is necessary to remove sections 1 to 7 of the bill—I appreciate that my amendments might not gain support, so I will support several other amendments to sections 1 to 7, as they would improve the bill.

I look forward to hearing from the minister on the incorporation of the new code into the existing one.

I move amendment 60.

Will the member take another intervention?

I think that Jim Fairlie finds himself in quite a paradoxical position. While he has agreed that the Government should remove part 2 of the bill, the pathway to removing it is to create a position where we can look at traceability with confidence. That is the crux of the bill: it is about understanding where those dogs, or pets, have gone. Understanding the welfare and traceability of those dogs is important to the bill.

I also raise the point that my friend and colleague Edward Mountain picked up. Gillian Martin had said that in 2022—I think that this is what Christine Grahame was referring to—the Scottish Government and the UK Conservative Government had had discussions on a consistent approach. If those conversations were had at that time, why have they not been progressed, and why does the minister not know what progress has been made from that initial conversation in 2022?

I listened to what the minister had to say, and we cannot support amendments 11 and 12. Amendment 11 has weaker wording and would mean that ministers would not have to “include provision giving effect” to sections 2 to 4. Amendment 12 would mean that ministers would not have to include provisions giving effect to section 4.

I am happy to support Rhoda Grant’s amendment 72, and I am very happy to support Finlay Carson’s amendments 61 and 62, which seem entirely sensible.

My key opposition is to amendment 16. As the bill is currently drafted, the code of practice must be published within six months of royal assent. I welcome the fact that the minister has accepted the committee’s recommendation to increase that period to 12 months, to allow sufficient time for an effective consultation. However, amendment 16, which was also lodged by the minister, would allow the Scottish Government to change the date by which the code of practice must be published. That suggests—as I said when I intervened on the minister—that the Government suspects that the timescale will likely not be achievable and that the Government will fail to meet it, despite its having been increased to 12 months. I cannot support amendment 16, because it is wrong that the Scottish Government could create a loophole in the bill to give it an easy way out if it failed to keep to the required timescale.

I will press you a little more. If it is not a legal requirement for people to keep the certificate—if they do not have to produce it—then the only reason that you are putting the amendments in is because of the perception that having a certificate is actually not necessary.

We would not be introducing further legislation if the original campaigns had been effective. I am supportive of Finlay Carson’s amendments 75 and 76, and Ariane Burgess’s amendment, but do you think that we should look at how effective the previous awareness campaigns have been and lodge amendments at stage 3 to reflect that?

But you have just said that, Ms Grahame.

It seems that the minister is hanging his hat on the so-called expertise of the Scottish Government. With other policies that the Scottish Government has brought forward, such as minimum unit pricing, the approach has not necessarily been successful. Ariane Burgess correctly talked about a preventative agenda and ensuring that there is funding behind the bill. We should also take into account what Christine Grahame has said. It is important that we get to the root of changing the future in terms of awareness.

Your amendment is entirely sensible, convener. I understand what the Government is trying to say—that it does not want the measure in the bill—but perhaps it should be in the bill, given some of the other policies that it has brought forward and which, with hindsight, have clearly have not worked.