Chamber and committees

First, I congratulate Maurice Golden on getting his member’s bill this far. I know the hard work that it takes for a member and their team—dinnae forget the team—to research, create and implement new legislation and to work with the attentive and supportive non-Government bills unit team. In the previous parliamentary session, I lodged a member’s bill to update the 73-year-old livestock-worrying legislation, to increase the penalties and protections on behalf of farmers whose livestock are chased, attacked or killed by out-of-control dogs. Again, well done, Mr Golden.

I am a member of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, and I took part in the scrutiny of the bill at stage 1. I will be brief and will focus my comments on working dogs and data. There is an argument that dogs need statutory and separate recognition under the law. Stealing someone’s guide dog is not the same as stealing a television, and I agree with members about the emotional distress caused by theft and about the sentience of their animals. I have two border collies, Meg and Maya. Both are now 13 years old and still amazing and great company. Maya won the first Holyrood dog of the year competition, in 2017, when she was just four.

Working dogs are highly trained dogs, and these animals are also part of the emotional attachments of their owners and families. If members picked any farmer or crofter out of the tens of thousands and asked how important their dog is to their day-to-day work on the farm, they would hear why the proposals should, at the very least, be considered. Farm dogs have a unique dual role: they are there to help farmers with their livestock, but they are also part of the family and a source of companionship in a job that often involves long periods of solitude and remoteness.

I note that the Scottish Government has indicated scepticism about the provisions on working dogs in the bill, but I am keen to hear feedback from the member in charge or the Government on whether the issue is the complexity of the ownership of working dogs or something else. If the general principles of the bill are agreed to today, I would like to engage in more discussions about that during stage 2.

I would also like more clarity on the resource implications for the police and judicial services. There will be an increase in the burdens of record keeping, data analysis and storage, reporting, and training for those who are involved in implementing the new law, and we should see an estimate of the bottom line before we commit to the legislation. If we are to have a specific offence of dog theft in statute, I want our public services to have the time and resources that they will need to investigate and prosecute offenders.

It was interesting to hear about the current data collection practices, which are reflected in the committee’s stage 1 report. Paragraph 96 of the report notes that the policy memorandum highlights that

“there is currently no requirement for incidences, charges, prosecutions and convictions to be recorded specifically as ‘dog theft’”,

with the result that

“there is no reliable data on the extent of dog theft.”

The general view that was expressed by stakeholders is that it would be helpful if provisions in the bill improved the type of data that is collected, including data relating to any trends regarding specific breeds that are stolen.

In its submission to the committee, Police Scotland stated:

“The introduction of a standalone statutory offence of Dog Theft would not enhance accuracy of crime recording as the theft may be committed in commission of another crime”,

such as housebreaking. In that case, it would be

“recorded as Robbery or Theft by Housebreaking as opposed to dog theft.”

If the member’s bill is passed, the Scottish crime recording standard will need to be amended. However, the committee recommends that, even if the bill does not proceed, amending the crime recording standard would enable better collection of data on dog theft.

I am conscious of the time, Presiding Officer, so I will conclude. I will support the general principles of the bill at decision time this evening.

Is option 1 the zonal approach?

Good afternoon to you, cabinet secretary, and everyone else. In the previous two panels I asked about socioeconomic impacts, and I am interested to hear whether you have any thoughts, concerns, or response to what has been said about socioeconomic impacts. Also, is there a need to revisit or refine the models that we use to look at socioeconomic impacts?

In the previous session, Keith Whyte talked about the whole supply chain. Someone else used the phrase “cultural lifeblood”. You are a north-easterner and I am fae the opposite end of the country. Will you affirm that we must consider the whole supply chain when thinking about the socioeconomic impact of the measures?

Good morning to you all. I have a couple of questions about socioeconomic impact. Some of the respondents highlighted the potential of negative effects on coastal communities and local economies if restrictions were too broad and not carefully targeted. In our papers, West Coast Sea Products was in favour of a zonal approach, which it said was

“sensible in ensuring PMFs”—

priority marine features—

“of relevance shall be protected.”

I am interested to hear from you about concerns that full-site closures could lead to displacement of fishing activities and adverse effects on coastal communities.

Thanks very much for coming in this morning. I asked our earlier witnesses about the socioeconomic impacts of introducing the MPA regulations. In submissions that it has received, the committee has heard of concerns about job losses, displacement of fishing activities and economic harm. Keith Whyte also mentioned the effects on our economy.

I am interested to hear your thoughts on the anticipated economic impacts of the proposed measures on your local fishing communities. Do the socioeconomic assessments used in the consultation accurately reflect the potential impacts?

Does a more accurate assessment of socioeconomic impact need to be conducted, or is what has been done accurate enough to convey the potential impacts?

Farmers have warned that our food security is under serious threat as a result of the UK Government’s decision to scrap skilled worker code 5111, which effectively blocks farms from hiring skilled overseas workers. That leaves pig, poultry, dairy and horticultural producers struggling to fill vital jobs. In Dumfries and Galloway, more than 25 dairy farms depend on staff from the Philippines and other nations to keep operations running.

Does the minister agree that that is yet another example of a UK Government that is ignorant of, and does not care about, the needs of Scotland’s farmers?

To ask the Scottish Government when it last engaged with the United Kingdom Government on domestic food and drink markets. (S6O-04997)

Will the minister outline what work the Scottish Government has done with local education authorities and external organisations to educate children and young people about acting appropriately around gulls, such as not feeding urban gulls, which encourages their flocking, and dealing with gull chicks?