���˿���

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.

I will speak to my amendment 61 and other amendments in the group.

Amendment 61 would require the code of practice to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny under the affirmative procedure. Christine Grahame has proposed that, under the bill, the code of practice would not be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, but the delegated powers memorandum explains that she took that approach as the scope of the powers in sections 1 and 5 is

“narrowed by provisions set out on the face of the Bill”,

and any other matters that are included by the Scottish ministers would be informed by their consultation exercise.

The delegated powers memorandum concluded:

“The Member considers that the core content of code will stand the test of time and that it is therefore appropriate to include it in this way. ... the substantial elements of the code will have been scrutinised by the Parliament during the passage of the Bill”.

However, my amendment 61 would make the code subject to parliamentary scrutiny under the affirmative procedure.

In its stage 1 report, the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee referred to section 37 of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, stating that

“any animal welfare code ... must be laid before, and approved by resolution of, the Scottish Parliament before it can come into effect.”

The stage 1 report also referred to the stage 1 report that was produced by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, in which it concluded that the code of practice “should be subject to” parliamentary scrutiny, due to “the evidential link” between compliance with the code and

“the possible commission of an offence”

under section 6 of the bill. The DPLR Committee recommended that

“the code of practice should be subject to a parliamentary procedure”

and set out the arguments for using either the affirmative or the negative procedure. The argument that the committee saw as being in favour of the affirmative procedure was

“the evidential link of a failure to follow the code of practice to the possible commissioning of an offence; and ... the power for Ministers to revise the code after consultation. This would align the code with codes of practice made under the 2006 Act.”

Once again, I ask members to support my amendment, which would mean that the code of practice would have to be scrutinised by Parliament under the affirmative procedure. That would more closely align with the 2006 act by giving ministers the power to revise the code after consultation and would address the evidential link between failure to follow the code of practice and the potential for an offence to be committed.

I call Rhoda Grant to speak to amendments 72 and other amendments in the group.

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

Amendment 74 disagreed to.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

Section 7—Public awareness and understanding of code

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 4, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 75 agreed to.

Amendment 76 moved—[Finlay Carson]—and agreed to.

Amendment 5 moved—[Ariane Burgess].

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 5 disagreed to.

Amendment 77 not moved.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

Section 8—Registration of litters

Amendment 50 moved—[Jim Fairlie]—and agreed to.

Section 9—Regulations: supplementary

Amendment 51 moved—[Jim Fairlie]—and agreed to.

Section 10—Compliance

Amendment 52 moved—[Jim Fairlie]—and agreed to.

Section 11—Public awareness and understanding of relevant regulatory regimes

Amendment 53 moved—[Jim Fairlie]—and agreed to.

After section 11

I will speak to my amendment 61 and other amendments in the group.

Amendment 61 would require the code of practice to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny under the affirmative procedure. Christine Grahame has proposed that, under the bill, the code of practice would not be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, but the delegated powers memorandum explains that she took that approach as the scope of the powers in sections 1 and 5 is

“narrowed by provisions set out on the face of the Bill”,

and any other matters that are included by the Scottish ministers would be informed by their consultation exercise.

The delegated powers memorandum concluded:

“The Member considers that the core content of code will stand the test of time and that it is therefore appropriate to include it in this way. ... the substantial elements of the code will have been scrutinised by the Parliament during the passage of the Bill”.

However, my amendment 61 would make the code subject to parliamentary scrutiny under the affirmative procedure.

In its stage 1 report, the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee referred to section 37 of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, stating that

“any animal welfare code ... must be laid before, and approved by resolution of, the Scottish Parliament before it can come into effect.”

The stage 1 report also referred to the stage 1 report that was produced by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, in which it concluded that the code of practice “should be subject to” parliamentary scrutiny, due to “the evidential link” between compliance with the code and

“the possible commission of an offence”

under section 6 of the bill. The DPLR Committee recommended that

“the code of practice should be subject to a parliamentary procedure”

and set out the arguments for using either the affirmative or the negative procedure. The argument that the committee saw as being in favour of the affirmative procedure was

“the evidential link of a failure to follow the code of practice to the possible commissioning of an offence; and ... the power for Ministers to revise the code after consultation. This would align the code with codes of practice made under the 2006 Act.”

Once again, I ask members to support my amendment, which would mean that the code of practice would have to be scrutinised by Parliament under the affirmative procedure. That would more closely align with the 2006 act by giving ministers the power to revise the code after consultation and would address the evidential link between failure to follow the code of practice and the potential for an offence to be committed.

I call Rhoda Grant to speak to amendment 72 and other amendments in the group.

Our next item of business is an evidence session as part of our follow-up inquiry into salmon farming in Scotland. Today’s session is about marine spatial planning and consenting processes. We have around 90 minutes for the discussion. I welcome to the meeting Mark Harvey, who is from the planning team in Highland Council, and Ronan O’Hara, who is the chief executive of the Crown Estate Scotland. Rachel Shucksmith, who is the marine spatial planning manager at the University of the Highlands and Islands, joins us remotely.

I also welcome Edward Mountain MSP, who will be taking part in the discussion. Mr Mountain, do you have any interests to declare?

Dr Shucksmith, what do you believe are the current challenges around aquaculture planning and consenting, and what further improvements would help the current regime to address them?

One of the REC Committee’s key recommendations was that there should be a more integrated and co-ordinated framework approach to consenting. One of the consenting task group’s solutions was to pilot a four-stage process. What is your experience of that? Is it working? What are your thoughts on the four-stage process?