Chamber and committees

There are some questions that are still to be answered, and I am very conscious of time, so the committee will maybe discuss that issue and write for more clarification. Thank you.

We move to the impact of budget cuts on service delivery, with a question from Ariane Burgess.

On that, there is a commitment to 70 per cent just now, so are you suggesting that there might be a degree of modulation in the future that would see some of that 70 per cent redistributed to tiers 3 and 4? Are you considering that?

We have had a wide-ranging discussion. There is still quite a level of uncertainty over this. The committee has no desire to reach this cliff edge, but there is flexibility with regard to when we can make a decision on the instrument. Therefore, I am minded to defer formal consideration of the motion to approve the instrument until a future committee meeting, if members are happy to do that. That would also give the minister time to consider whether it would be wise to reconsider and to withdraw the instrument for future considerations.

On that basis, does the committee agree to defer formal consideration of the motion to a future committee meeting?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you. I just wanted to make that clear.

We move to our final theme, which is the national islands plan, and a question from Emma Roddick.

We move to agenda item 3, which is the formal consideration of the motion to approve the instrument. I invite the minister to move the motion.

Motion moved,

That the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee recommends that the Plant Health (Import Inspection Fees) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 2024 [draft] be approved.—[Jim Fairlie]

Motion agreed to.

Item 4 is consideration of another affirmative SSI. I note that the Scottish Government has issued a correction slip for the explanatory note that accompanies the instrument. I welcome back to the meeting Jim Fairlie, the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity. I also welcome his officials, James Muldoon, who is the head of the agriculture support policy development unit, and Lewis Kerr, who is a solicitor.

I invite the minister to make some brief opening remarks.

We need to be completely certain about that. Ms Roddick’s question was whether there needs to be a decision today. Can you answer that?

The result of the division is: For 7, Against 2, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 12 agreed to.

Amendments 13 and 14 moved—[Jim Fairlie]—and agreed to.

Amendment 61 moved—[Finlay Carson].

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 71 disagreed to.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

Section 5—Revision of code

Amendment 47 moved—[Jim Fairlie].

Amendment 75, in my name, is grouped with amendments 76 and 5.

Amendment 75 seeks to make it a statutory requirement to introduce a public awareness campaign specifically to ensure that children are made aware of the code at school.

In its stage 1 report, the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee noted that section 7 says:

“The Scottish Ministers must take reasonable steps to ensure public awareness and understanding of the code of practice”,

and then referred to the policy memorandum, which states that

“For the behavioural shift envisaged to take place, effective public awareness raising will be vital in ensuring those acquiring a dog become aware of and understand the contents of the code and the associated certificate.”

The report then made the point that

“All witnesses supported section 7 and strongly agreed that a public awareness campaign would be essential in order for the bill’s objectives to be achieved.”

The stage 1 report also referenced the Kennel Club’s puppywise survey. According to that organisation, the

“survey found that a fifth of people still spend less than two hours researching whether to get a puppy ... and nearly a third admit that they would not know how to spot a rogue breeder”,

and it concluded that

“For us, the educational piece is really important because, ultimately, we need members of the public to demand better standards of breeders.”

Several animal welfare organisations also talked about the challenges of awareness campaigns having a meaningful impact on public behaviour. The Dogs Trust referred to the “very low” public awareness of the existing code of practice for cats and dogs, while the SSPCA talked about

“people following their hearts, not their heads”

and how

“They know that standing in a car park with a puppy in the boot of a car is the wrong thing to do, but they think, ‘I want to go and rescue that pup, because who else is going to do it?’”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 20 September 2023; c 7, 17.]

That is why the amendment seeks to make a public awareness campaign a statutory requirement.

We believe that children should be made aware of this issue in schools, too. According to new pet population data released by UK Pet Food, in 2024, 56 per cent of new pet owners have children at home. As for more long-term ownership, the National Library of Medicine found that almost 20 per cent of all dog owners had a child at home. One might summarise all that by saying that a sizeable proportion of dog owners have children, and it is therefore clear that targeting a public awareness campaign at schools would reach a sizeable pet owner demographic. As a result, a public awareness campaign with the code of practice explained in simple terms would be effective.

Amendment 76 seeks to make it mandatory for the Scottish Government to consult relevant organisations on raising funds for public awareness. It is incredibly important that the Government works with and consults organisations such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Dogs Trust, the Kennel Club, the Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and the SSPCA, to ensure that any public awareness campaign is maximised. Discussions should also take place on the potential funding for public awareness campaigns.

I move amendment 75.