Chamber and committees

The member makes a very good case as to why new legislation is necessary. My understanding is that her bill would include a code. Could she say why she feels that it is necessary for the detail of that code to be—unusually—in the bill? I do not say that as a criticism of the bill, but I would like to know why the member feels that so much information about the code needs to be in the bill itself.

I will not try to do a vote of thanks for what was a well-informed debate. I thank Christine Grahame for what I understand were the six years of work that lie behind her bill and for the evidence that she provided to the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee. I know that the welfare of animals is a subject that is very close to Ms Grahame’s heart, and she should be commended for her consistent advocacy on that subject in this place.

Our history as a nation of dog lovers has been alluded to, and dogs have played a key role in Scotland’s folklore. Countless people visit Greyfriars Bobby’s grave every year and Mary, Queen of Scots was well known for her love of dogs, having acquired that affection during her time in France. Incidentally, it is believed that, upon the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots, her loyal canine Folly, a terrier, was found hiding at her feet. You will be pleased to know that I will not continue much further in that vein, Presiding Officer. I am prompted to mention it all merely through the sudden recollection of Christine Grahame’s campaign some years ago to repatriate to Scotland the respective components of Mary, Queen of Scots.

In the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, there was a widespread acceptance that the aims of the proposed legislation are good. We can always do more to ensure the legality, safety and robustness of the way in which dog breeding and dog sales are governed. Therefore, I believe that, on the whole, we should support the general principles of the bill at stage 1.

The bill proposes a new code of practice regarding acquiring and supplying a dog. Although powers already exist to introduce codes of practice relating to animal welfare under sections 37 and 38 of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, the proposed code is structured around the duty of care that will be placed on the owner to meet welfare needs, which are based on the internationally recognised five freedoms approach.

As an MSP for the Western Isles, where the use of working dogs is still important, I believe that we should consider whether the scope of part 1 of the bill should extend to all dogs, regardless of the purposes for which they are kept. Indeed, the Scottish Government’s current code of practice for the welfare of dogs applies to all dogs, whether they be pets or working animals. After hearing evidence from stakeholders and reading the written responses to the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, I believe that such a proposal is worth considering.

Although some proposals in the bill will not have entirely convinced some members of the committee that they are necessary to improve animal welfare, I am confident that there is scope for useful and helpful amendments from members across the Parliament to ensure that the bill does what it seeks to do, which is to ensure the long-term welfare of Scotland’s dogs. As other members have pointed out today, that is often in the face of great cruelty and, very often, in the face of organised crime.

On that basis, I am very happy to support Ms Grahame’s bill at stage 1 and to endorse its general principles.

I am making a point about the timings for stage 2. I accept the point that you are making, convener—I am not disputing that. I am saying that perhaps the more urgent question is how we get through stage 2. We need guidance from you on when our sittings will be. That is the more pressing question.

Obviously, it is up to the cabinet secretary how she wishes to engage with the committee, and my point, which is more of a practical one, is perhaps something that we can return to at the end of the meeting. My understanding is that we have a relatively short time available to us to complete stage 2—we need to do that either before or at the end of this month, I think. I would probably argue against innovations to procedure, but we need some idea of when our sittings will be, to ensure that we get through our existing business on the stage 2 amendments.

I wonder whether the point about redistribution is also relevant to the formation of a rural support plan. Will the impact of agricultural policy on redistribution be a factor in forming a rural support plan?

I look forward to hearing what the cabinet secretary has to say about the amendments before I decide whether to move mine. However, the aim of amendment 119 is simply to ensure effective consultation with those impacted or affected by the rural support plan. In order for the plan to deliver the desired outcomes, there needs to be effective discussion and consultation in advance of its publication and in advance of subsequent amendments to the plan.

What steps is the Scottish Government taking to deal with the threat that is posed to Scotland’s bees by the parasitic Varroa mite?

My constituents in Uist are concerned that recent flight timetabling is understood to have prevented some visits by consultants from Raigmore hospital in Inverness. Can the minister indicate what can be done to ensure that the timetabling of transport links is harmonised, giving due consideration to the needs of island communities, to ensure that the level of healthcare to which islanders should be entitled is not detrimentally affected?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on how the NHS supports the health of rural and islands communities through regular visits from consultants. (S6O-03401)

I thank Tess White for securing the debate. Whether we always realise that energy infrastructure affects every one of us, people in rural constituencies such as mine probably realise it more than most.

To achieve the net zero emission targets of the UK and Scottish Governments by 2050 and 2045, respectively, the independent Climate Change Committee has forecast that a doubling of electricity supply will be required to meet demand. Naturally, that will require extensive improvements to and expansion of our existing electricity infrastructure.

As other members have accurately pointed out, the Scottish Government faces limitations in reforming energy policy, as that is a matter that is reserved to the UK Government. I will give an example of that. Outdated transmission charges result in higher electricity costs for residents of northern Scotland, despite the fact that renewable energy sources are based there.

The UK Government’s wider lack of adequate regulation leads to wider problems for rural and island areas. For instance, a constituent of mine was recently told by Octopus Energy that it had not encountered the island’s postcode before, and that fitting a new meter could therefore take several years.

To return to the matter that we are debating today, I believe that there needs to be a greater understanding of how critical existing and planned infrastructure updates are to ensuring the safe and reliable transmission of electricity across Scotland.

I wish to focus on one particular project, which I understand has provoked debate along its route, to offer a different, more westerly perspective. Electricity for the whole of my constituency, the Western Isles, is currently supplied by two subsea cables from the north of Skye. Significant sections of the electricity line between Fort Augustus and Skye were built more than 70 years ago. Those sections are fast approaching the end of their operational life, as is demonstrated by three major faults suffered on the line during the past year.

The recent total failure of the cable between Skye and Harris resulted in 20,000 people in Lewis and Harris having to rely on a 70-year-old diesel-fired power station in Stornoway for several months. That was obviously far from ideal from an emissions perspective, and it has caused some anxiety about future sustainability. I should point out that the existing overhead line between Fort Augustus and Skye is a single circuit, with no back-up transmission circuits in the event of a fault. I have to register the view of many island constituents that a double-circuit replacement there would greatly strengthen network resilience and reliability.

One point that has been made very well is that community input is absolutely essential for infrastructure projects such as overhead lines. Listening to and addressing local concerns should be prioritised, not treated as an afterthought or as a tick-box exercise. When people work well together, important improvements can be made to proposals. I understand that, as a direct result of stakeholder feedback, SSEN is now planning—I hope—to underground some sections of the Fort Augustus to Skye line in the area around the iconic Cuillin mountain ranges.

As we move towards our net zero aims, we must look to do what is right for Scotland’s future generations. Communities must be listened to, and we must upgrade and expand our energy infrastructure so that it is fit for the years ahead. Those two aims need not be, and indeed should not be, in opposition to one another.