Chamber and committees

It has been a very interesting discussion. We heard from the community development companies that they were looking for land in order to retain populations, but the bill covers land at the moment of sale; it does not cover on-going development. Is there something that we could add to the bill to allow communities easier access to assets of community importance? Would compulsory purchase be a vehicle for doing that? If so, who would have the power to do it? Is there anything else that the community development companies suggest could be added to the bill that would apply prior to the point of transfer or sale?

Okay. Laura Hamlet, do you have anything to add to that?

The sequencing is on transfer of the land. Some of the concerns are to do with land that is not being transferred when there is a community development need for land. Why wait until the land transfers? I get that some landowners will enter negotiations with communities, but others will not. The issue is about how you make it happen for those who are in the difficult situation in which the landowner will not enter into discussions with the community.

Yes, indeed—I am thinking about any kind of community development. Housing is the obvious one, but I am also thinking about things such as the development of renewables, which would give an income to a community company, and the development of units for local businesses. The list of what communities might want to develop is endless.

Yes. I want to turn to crofting, which is missing from the bill. Yet again, we have had a lot of discussion about crofting and its impact on land ownership. Should crofting be specifically mentioned in the bill? We have heard that crofters have an absolute right to buy individually. Should the crofting community right to buy reflect that, to make it easier? I am looking at Laura Hamlet, because her company has just bought a crofting estate that is totally made up of crofting land. Should that not have been very easy to do, given the existing powers of crofters?

Okay, but could the process have been easier for the crofters if they had individually exercised their right to buy, rather than having to go through the complex process of the crofting community right to buy?

I congratulate Christine Grahame on introducing this member’s bill. Throughout her career, she has fought to improve animal welfare, and the bill is testament to that. I thank all those who helped to bring the bill to the Parliament and who gave evidence. The frustration, as always with a member’s bill, is that the levers that are available to the Government are not available to members. There are many things that we would have liked to have seen in the bill that are not there.

The bill will give prospective buyers a pause, so that they can reflect on the issues that are in the code. For reasonable, law-abiding people, that may lead them to change their mind on dog ownership or, indeed, on whether the breed of dog that they are seeking to own is practical for them, but will it stop them buying from puppy farmers? Few would chose to do that, but will they step back if they are faced with a seller who does not appear to be legitimate? As happens now, they might not. I do not think that the certificate would be enough to dissuade them.

We all know of people who, in good faith, have sought to buy a dog, and when it became clear that they were not buying from a reputable breeder, most will admit that they bought the dog regardless. The alternative would have been for them to leave the dog in the ownership of a seller who obviously did not care about the dog’s welfare, and they could not bring themselves to do that. There are many sad stories of people who acquire dogs in that way, paying dearly for their pet and paying yet again for the vet fees to try to restore their animal’s health. I hope that the publicity campaign on the bill encourages people to walk away from those sales. Although that appears to be cruel in the short term, it is the only way to stop the illegal puppy trade.

At stage 2, there were a number of amendments on microchipping registers. At the time, the Scottish Government undertook to work with the UK Government on the issue, because it was preferable to have a UK-wide microchipping register. There are a number of privately administered registers, and it is not always clear to a buyer whether a dog has indeed been microchipped, and the registers can be complex to update. It would be helpful to have a UK-wide register that would allow people to check the previous ownership of their pet. A single register would also make it easier to find puppy farmers and put them out of business. I know that that is not as simple as it sounds, given the number of private companies that are involved. However, I would welcome an update on progress and possible solutions when the minister sums up.

The bill is worthy, but, like every member’s bill, it is restricted because it does not have the power of the Government behind it. I urge the Government to look at the issues that were raised during the bill’s passage and to consider providing solutions to protect animal welfare and to stop the illegal trade in puppies.

I congratulate Christine Grahame on introducing this member’s bill. Throughout her career, she has fought to improve animal welfare, and the bill is testament to that. I thank all those who helped to bring the bill to the Parliament and who gave evidence. The frustration, as always with a member’s bill, is that the levers that are available to the Government are not available to members. There are many things that we would have liked to have seen in the bill that are not there.

The bill will give prospective buyers a pause, so that they can reflect on the issues that are in the code. For reasonable, law-abiding people, that may lead them to change their mind on dog ownership or, indeed, on whether the breed of dog that they are seeking to own is practical for them, but will it stop them buying from puppy farmers? Few would choose to do that, but will they step back if they are faced with a seller who does not appear to be legitimate? As happens now, they might not. I do not think that the certificate would be enough to dissuade them.

We all know of people who, in good faith, have sought to buy a dog, and when it became clear that they were not buying from a reputable breeder, most will admit that they bought the dog regardless. The alternative would have been for them to leave the dog in the ownership of a seller who obviously did not care about the dog’s welfare, and they could not bring themselves to do that. There are many sad stories of people who acquire dogs in that way, paying dearly for their pet and paying yet again for the vet fees to try to restore their animal’s health. I hope that the publicity campaign on the bill encourages people to walk away from those sales. Although that appears to be cruel in the short term, it is the only way to stop the illegal puppy trade.

At stage 2, there were a number of amendments on microchipping registers. At the time, the Scottish Government undertook to work with the UK Government on the issue, because it was preferable to have a UK-wide microchipping register. There are a number of privately administered registers, and it is not always clear to a buyer whether a dog has indeed been microchipped, and the registers can be complex to update. It would be helpful to have a UK-wide register that would allow people to check the previous ownership of their pet. A single register would also make it easier to find puppy farmers and put them out of business. I know that that is not as simple as it sounds, given the number of private companies that are involved. However, I would welcome an update on progress and possible solutions when the minister sums up.

The bill is worthy, but, like every member’s bill, it is restricted because it does not have the power of the Government behind it. I urge the Government to look at the issues that were raised during the bill’s passage and to consider providing solutions to protect animal welfare and to stop the illegal trade in puppies.

I have. Let me try again.

That does not appear to have worked.

The First Minister will be aware of the eye-watering increases in haulage costs for perishable food to businesses in Uist. In some cases, prices have increased by 120 per cent, stopping some food supplies within the islands. Press reports state that DFDS has already engaged with the Scottish Government about the issue. What is the outcome of that engagement? Will the First Minister act to protect consumers in Uist? Will he now stop the 10 per cent ferry fare increase to the islands?