Chamber and committees

Will the member take an intervention?

Creative Scotland’s current funding model, which provides three-year funding, has resulted in the Hebridean Celtic festival—which is one of the most important events in my region—facing a catastrophic funding gap post-2024. That, combined with the removal of local authority funding, means that there is no prospect of any public funding until 2028 at the earliest. The cabinet secretary is aware that the loss of the festival would remove millions of pounds from the local economy, which desperately needs it. Will he look at the funding model and review how Creative Scotland provides funding and its processes and policies, to make sure that we do not lose jewels such as the HebCelt festival?

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests, as I have a one-sixth share in a family home.

The lack of housing is the single biggest issue that faces rural Scotland. After 17 years, the Scottish Government now admits that we have a housing emergency, but that cannot be solved by a tick-box exercise. We hear of the £25 million scheme for key workers that has bought only four houses, all of which are in Orkney. Why is that the case? I know that NHS Highland has recruited staff only for them to withdraw their applications because they have not been able to find a place to live. Why has that fund not been used?

That is especially an issue in Skye. Last weekend, the accident and emergency in Portree was closed during Skye Live, and there were critical health incidents that had tragic consequences. How can it be that patients in Skye cannot march for health services because policing resources are being used in Inverness to police an Orange order march, but Skye Live can go ahead in Skye without adequate ambulance cover and when the local A and E is closed?

The lack of housing is the biggest economic damper that we face. Services cannot be delivered, and depopulation is rife. The shortage of housing is the biggest issue that we hear about from service providers, businesses and individuals. We need there to be a rural burden, especially on homes that are built with public funding. Those homes need to stay in the local housing market.

Can holiday home and second-home accommodation be restricted? Operators of such accommodation now need licences. Can councils set a ceiling—of 10 per cent, say—for a reasonable number of licences to grant? Although the legislation picks up B and Bs in people’s own homes and camping pods, they are not the problem. In fact, they boost the local economy, so we need to count them out of that. The big problem relates to family homes. Homes that are suitable for year-round accommodation are being taken out of the local housing market.

There is also a lack of social rented housing. Whatever the Government says, it has not overcome the costs barrier that the lack of economies of scale causes. In a small village, one or two houses will be required. We all know about the homes in Barra that cost a quarter of a million pounds each to build.

The issue is partly to do with urban planning restrictions. We need to have a rural planning system that reflects rural housing standards. There is an insistence on street lights, even though there is nowhere to go after dark. Pavements are considered essential, but there are no pavements to join on to. Rainwater collection systems that have been designed for built-up urban areas are specified in areas where there is a nearby river that collects the rainfall. In addition, the cost of connecting to services such as water, sewerage and telecoms, which are services that people need, is astronomical.

We need to find different ways of doing those things in rural areas, because jobs in renewables are—we hope—coming down the track in those areas, but people cannot currently be housed there. We need new houses. There is a housing emergency everywhere, but we are feeling it most in rural areas, which are always being left further behind. The Gaelic language is dying because of the dispersal of native Gaelic speakers. People want to remain in their own communities, but they cannot afford to buy a house and there are no social rented houses available.

The Scottish Government has now acknowledged that there is a problem. It needs to spell out what it is going to do, because depopulation is accelerating and we need answers now.

This has been a good debate, and there has been much consensus around the need for further education on purchasing dogs. That point was made by Christine Grahame and amplified by many members—indeed, all members—who spoke this afternoon. That means education to encourage people to think, to ensure that people know how to identify a rogue breeder and to ensure that people know what is required for a breed and whether it will be suitable for their home.

Colin Smyth talked about impulse purchasing and, to prevent that, having people pause to think. A number of speakers, including Colin, have talked about puppies being found at Cairnryan having been smuggled into the country. If Cairnryan appears to be a place where illegal puppies are being smuggled into the country, I wonder whether the Scottish Government might speak to Irish counterparts to try to put a stop to that.

Colin Smyth also talked about the certificate that, under the bill, would be required to be signed by sellers and buyers, and about sellers and buyers having to answer a number of questions, which are outlined in the bill, before they could get that certificate. The certificate itself was not a cause for concern, because it would provide a pause, but there were concerns about those certificate questions being in the bill. People have been very clear that the questions are necessary, and a number of people talked about having more questions. Colin Smyth and Maurice Golden talked about breed-specific questions on health and on what to look out for and what should be discouraged during the purchase of a dog such as one of the flat-nosed breeds that have difficulty in breathing. I am minded to support the suggestion that the questions be set in regulations so that they can be updated and modified as necessary, which Christine Grahame might consider as we go through to stage 2 of the bill.

A number of members have talked about the code of practice, which the bill legislates for. We heard in committee that the Scottish Government already has powers to introduce a code, but the bill would extend those powers and put pressure on the Scottish Government to use them, because it was in 2010 that the existing code of practice was last updated. Christine Grahame is clear that that code of practice is unwieldy and far too long, and that the one under her bill would be much shorter and would be user-friendly and educational, rather than punitive. However, a number of those who gave evidence, such as the SSPCA, thought that it would be better and simpler to keep to one code.

Considering population size, the Highlands and Islands region has consistently had a higher rate of suicide than other regions. Mental health provision in NHS Highland has been variable in recent years, with the authority spending more than £2 million last year alone on locum psychiatrists. Staff shortages are leaving charities and campaign groups such as no more lost souls, Mikeysline and James Support Group to fill the gaps. Will the First Minister consider a different approach to recruitment of health staff in rural areas, such as offering financial incentives for permanent staff to relocate? We simply cannot continue without the support that vulnerable people need.

I, too, put on record my recognition of Christine Grahame’s work on the welfare of dogs and on the illegal puppy trade. She has done a lot of work in the Parliament on the issue, and I pay tribute to it.

It is difficult to disagree with the bill’s general principles, given that they are about improving animal welfare and ensuring responsible pet ownership. We have all seen a rise in the ownership of dogs during Covid. At that time, people were at home and able to look after their pets, but those who did not give the matter sufficient thought are now struggling to keep those pets well looked after as they return to the office. Indeed, rehoming charities have been talking about the number of abandoned dogs that they have.

We have also heard about the growth in illegal puppy farms to meet the demand for puppies, and we need to challenge that, too. However, as this is a member’s bill, it is naturally restricted in what it can do. I believe that, if the Government were to take up the challenge, there would be scope to go further than the bill does in order to deal with illegal puppy farms. The bill cannot do it—as I have said, a member’s bill is very restricted—so it might be good if the Scottish Government could look at amendments in that respect.

As we have heard, the Scottish Government has more difficulty with part 2 of the bill. There are indeed difficulties with that part, but it is really important—if we can get it right—because it provides for a register of unlicensed litters. Often, people who are not breeders allow their pets to have puppies; currently, though, there are no protections for those puppies. Breeders have to be licensed and follow standards, but people are able to breed dogs without their being licensed breeders, and that creates a loophole for those illegal breeders who hide under the radar to do these things.

We have heard of these people, for example, portraying holiday rentals as their own homes where they will take the puppies, often with a dog that is not the mother of the litter. They do not care anything for animal welfare. We often hear about people buying a puppy and then discovering that they have huge vet bills to deal with, and that the puppy that they had paid a lot of money for was unwell and would perhaps not survive.

I therefore totally understand why Christine Grahame is seeking to have all litters registered—she is trying to close that loophole—but I also understand that that might be challenging. The committee was told by Battersea Dogs and Cats Home that, although the microchipping of dogs is now a legal requirement, only about 20 per cent of the dogs that they take in are chipped. Therefore, enforcement is an issue that we need to deal with at present, never mind the introduction of a new register.

Because of the general data protection regulation legislation, there are also concerns about the public accessibility of the detail in the register and about people being able to look at it to see whether their puppy was indeed registered.

Yes, it does need more thought. That is not a criticism of Christine Grahame, because there is a limit to what any back-bench member of the Parliament can introduce and there are restrictions on the complexity of such legislation. However, during stage 2 of the bill’s progress, the Government will have an opportunity to consider what it can do to work with the organisations that Christine Grahame has mentioned. Tackling that one issue would go a long way towards bringing illegal traders to book.

I believe that the general principles of the bill should be supported. I urge the Government to examine the bill so that we can improve it as it goes through the parliamentary process and that we can, I hope, bring an end to the scourge of illegal puppy farming.

I absolutely take that on board, but there must be a way that we could simplify it to get to the place where Christine Grahame wants us to go, with people reading the code, taking it on board and, indeed, acting on it. If they do not—Colin Smyth mentioned this in his speech—should there be penalties for a breach and should there be better enforcement of current regulations? We might need to see that.

There has been discussion in the debate about pets and working dogs. In her opening speech, Christine Grahame said that she was considering extending the bill provisions to working dogs. We all know that people want to buy working dogs that will do a job for them and that they take much more care when doing that. However, if a loophole were created whereby people could opt to say that their dog was a working dog and did not need to be registered, that would be an issue. I do not believe that someone buying a working dog would have to take any further action if they also had to fulfil the requirements of the bill—they would already be taking those actions to ensure that they were getting a dog that was fit for purpose.

There has been agreement that the bill and any subsequent publicity would raise awareness, which, in itself, is a positive outcome. However, we need to deal with the illegal traders who go to great lengths to cover their tracks. I ask the minister, who said in his opening remarks that the bill would not stop the illegal trade, whether he would work to strengthen the bill. I urge him to do so in order to stop that trade.

I am grateful for that intervention, as it highlights that the many companies that deal with microchip registers could come together and make them available for scrutiny. Perhaps people could even check with a vet whether their pet had indeed been microchipped.

Amendment 20 includes food security in the bill as part of the overarching objectives. There are several reasons for that. As we have seen with the war in Ukraine, such events—indeed, world events—can hamper our access to food.

Amendment 21 deals with local food production. We know that food miles create carbon. Therefore, the closer we are to food security and the fewer food miles we use, the better things are. We also know that access to locally produced food is more sustainable and cost effective for communities. Those two amendments mean that the objective in section 1(b) would read: “food security, and the production of high-quality food access to locally produced food for every person in Scotland.”

Amendment 26 would insert a new overarching objective to ensure that rural businesses have sufficient funds and resources to enable them to provide fair work conditions. We often hear from crofters and small farm enterprises that it is impossible for them to make a living from their agricultural activity. That is in part because of the unequal way in which we currently distribute support funding. I hope that later amendments will go some way towards changing that. It is often the smaller enterprises that sequestrate more carbon and provide higher natural benefits. Therefore, when distributing support funding, we should look to provide a fairer income for those small businesses.

Amendment 27 recognises the carbon and nature benefits of small crofts and small farms, and it seeks to ensure that future support recognises that and provides them with adequate support. Currently, producers on less than 3 hectares—specifically those in horticulture—are excluded from support. Although the small producers pilot fund is welcome, it has been allocated only £1 million in 2024. There are 20,000 small producers, of whom only 7,000 are registered for rural payments. They receive, on average, £143 per year per hectare for businesses under 30 hectares, whereas every hectare of region 1 land receives £223 per hectare a year. That is simply unfair, and the new scheme needs to address that. Small and diverse agricultural units can deliver high land productivity at levels that are well above those delivered by larger-scale monocropping. They also store more carbon and have a higher nature value—all things that we should be supporting.

With regard to the other amendments in the group, I am puzzled by Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 94—I cannot understand why we should not be aiming for high-quality food. I understand what she is trying to do with amendment 97, which is very similar to my amendments.

I am also puzzled by Ariane Burgess’s amendment 24. The bill is about the distribution of farm subsidies. If that funding is more widely distributed, it could damage the industry and, with it, our push towards net zero. Therefore, I do not think that I can support that amendment, but I am happy to listen to her reasoning in that regard. I am also puzzled by amendment 25. Again, I will listen with interest to see what is meant by it.

I have a lot of sympathy for Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 96 but, because it would knock out my amendments, I will not be able to support it.

I support Colin Smyth’s amendments in this group.