Seòmar agus comataidhean

Okay. It seems a little strange, but there you go.

In our stage 1 report, we asked the Scottish Government to come back to us with an update on progress with conversations with the UK Government. Would it be possible for the Scottish Government to come back before stage 3 with an update on what the likely costs will be, on any further conversations that it has had and on a plan as to how that could work?

I am likely to move amendment 79, just to see what support there is for it round the room. I also want to hear what Christine Grahame has to say. If the Scottish Government’s approach is to fly, we need to have confidence about your costs, including in comparison with my costs. You have just said that you could do it cost effectively, but how are we to know that?

I am disappointed by Jim Fairlie’s comments. I am disappointed that the Scottish Government does not agree that the proposed code of practice should be incorporated into the original code of practice. I have the code of practice on the welfare of dogs here in front of me; it has a great picture of a little dog on the front. As Christine Grahame said, it is fairly long—it is 28 pages long. However, it is comprehensive. The same issues will arise with regard to awareness of Christine Grahame’s more concise, one-page code among people who are looking to acquire a dog as exists at the moment in relation to the current code when it comes to ensuring the highest standards of welfare.

This is all about the welfare of dogs, and it comes as no surprise to me that the Scottish Government does not want to take the sensible route of incorporating into one document the whole process of acquiring and then looking after a dog. I am incredibly disappointed. I think that what is proposed in the bill is the onerous route. Once again, the Government is not taking the practical route.

I press amendment 60.

I will wait for Christine Grahame’s explanation, but if a person who buys a dog gets a certificate, should they just rip it up and put it in the bin?

Thank you, convener.

In the past, the Government has had awareness campaigns, but we have no idea how effective those campaigns—

If we are being pedantic about this, the amendment on public awareness and understanding of the code does not specifically set out that it will deal with those issues.

I thought Edward Mountain was yolking when he spoke about having to register one chicken.

Amendment 79 has been based on section 8 of the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010, which introduced a dog control database, and requires the Scottish ministers to introduce a new microchip database. As was noted in the committee’s stage 1 report, some relevant stakeholder groups, such as the Scottish SPCA

“gave evidence about the challenges of checking microchip details across the different databases for different manufacturers”.

Amendment 79 seeks to enhance and improve traceability by creating a microchip database. As drafted, the amendment creates an obligation for ministers to work with the UK Government, because that was recognised in the committee’s stage 1 report and during the stage 1 debate as being important for workability and effectiveness. We have already heard a brief summary of that from Christine Grahame. I have the costs if the minister is interested in seeing those, but I will not go into them in detail.

Amendment 78 requires ministers to conduct a review and to publish a report every two years on whether a centralised database containing microchip details should be used to monitor the acquisition and transfer of dogs and the microchipping of puppies. The amendment also requires the Scottish Government to consult stakeholders on a centralised microchip database. Additionally, and as with amendment 79, it also creates an obligation for the Scottish Government to work collaboratively with the UK Government. I appreciated the opportunity to discuss that with Christine Grahame, who is supportive.

Has the head count gone down since Marine Scotland was changed to the marine directorate?

On that specific subject, the Auditor General, Stephen Boyle, has said that he is concerned that Scottish Government goals are not clear, measurable and achievable. Beatrice Wishart raised issues about R100 completion across regions, and there are also issues with other policies that were announced in the programme for government in 2021, 2022 and 2023. There was the rural and islands housing action plan—obviously, Scotland has an issue with depopulation—the £20 million rural entrepreneur fund, which is essential for succession planning and creating jobs, and the missing Bew funding, which we have talked about. When will the committee be able to understand the work on the rural data dashboard and the impact of the lack of delivery of those policies on inequalities in rural areas?

I am sorry, but I was just saying what Stephen Boyle, the Auditor General, said.

Would the same apply to the code of practice on sustainable and regenerative farming and the secondary legislation?