Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill

The Convener (Edward Mountain)

Good morning and welcome to the 22nd meeting in 2020 of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. The meeting will be conducted in hybrid format, with two committee members—Richard Lyle and John Finnie—and our witnesses participating remotely.

Emma Harper, who is the member in charge of the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, cannot participate as a committee member during scrutiny of her bill. However, she is joining us remotely today.

Agenda item 1 is stage 1 of the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, on which we will take evidence from two panels of witnesses. We have a lot of questions to get through and a considerable number of witnesses, so I ask everyone to keep their questions and answers as short and focused as possible.

Before we go any further, I invite committee members to declare any relevant interests, because this is the first evidence session on the bill.

Peter Chapman (North East Scotland) (Con)

I am a member of a farming partnership in Aberdeenshire.

Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

I am part-owner of a registered agricultural holding on which sheep are regularly kept, and therefore have an interest in the matter of the bill.

Maureen Watt (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

My interest is completely different, as I am an honorary associate member of the British Veterinary Association.

The Convener

I, too, am an honorary member of the British Veterinary Association, and I have an interest in an agricultural partnership in Speyside. For clarity, I say that we, the partners in the farm, have suffered from sheep worrying in the past.

I welcome the first panel, which consists of individuals from organisations that are involved in investigating and enforcing the offence of livestock worrying. Fiona Lovatt is a director of Flock Health Ltd; Inspector Alan Dron is the chair of the Scottish partnership against rural crime and national rural crime co-ordinator at Police Scotland; and Kirsteen Mackenzie is an animal welfare officer with Perth and Kinross Council.

There was to be a fourth member of the panel. Graham Hatton, who is assistant team leader of operations for mid-Argyll, Kintyre and Islay at Argyll and Bute Council might be having problems with technology. I will let you know if he manages to join us.

Witnesses should keep an eye on me, when I have called you. If I feel that you are going off on a wee tangent, I might waggle my pen at you, which means that I am looking at you to stop on that particular track and allow another witness in. You are in a great position, in joining us remotely, because I cannot actually launch the pen at you, but you will know when I get to that stage.

The first questions are from John Finnie. Good morning, John.

John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)

Good morning, convener. Richard Lyle and I are experiencing a slight issue with the sound, in that it is very quiet. I hope that I am coming through okay.

Good morning, panel. Thank you for your written submissions, which always help the committee greatly. I would like to ask each of you what, in your professional experience, your assessment of the scale and nature of the problem is.

The Convener

I invite Alan Dron to kick off on that.

Inspector Alan Dron (Police Scotland)

Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to take part.

Through my current role in the Scottish partnership against rural crime, we in Police Scotland and all our partners see all aspects of livestock worrying. We have tried to encourage and educate, because that is key. Every year, in all parts of Scotland, including the isles, there are instances of livestock worrying. That ranges from a dog being in a field to the extreme of there being fatalities.

I can provide our figures, which are broken down into yearly figures and campaign figures. From 1 April 2018 to 31 March 2019, 321 attacks on livestock were reported to Police Scotland, of which 123 were investigated as crimes. That provides a crime to incident ratio of about 1:3. At that time, no records were kept of the breed type, or of whether the owner was with the dog or the dog was by itself at the time of the incident.

As time has gone on, we have tried to scrutinise such incidents more closely. In the year 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020, 265 attacks on livestock were reported to Police Scotland, of which 118 were investigated as crimes. Therefore, there was a slight improvement; that equates to a crime to incident ratio of about 1:2. Of the attacks, 116 occurred when the owner or person in charge was nearby or present, 115 occurred when there was no person present and 34 were recorded as unknowns—in other words, it was not confirmed whether there was someone in the vicinity. In about 50 per cent of incidents in that year, an owner was present, and in about 50 per cent the dog was loose by itself. The most prevalent breeds involved were huskies and Alsatians—German shepherds.

This year, from 1 April up to 31 August, 99 attacks on livestock have been reported to Police Scotland, 40 of which have been investigated as crimes, so again we are talking about a crime to incident ratio of about 1:2. Of those 99 attacks, 56 occurred when the owner or person in charge was present, 31 occurred when there was no one present and, in 12 cases, we are unsure whether someone was present. SPARC’s “Your dog—your responsibility” campaign, which focuses on dogs that are allowed to roam free without their owners, has resulted in a heartening increase in the proportion of attacks being those when someone is with the dog. In other words, we are lowering the number of attacks that are committed by dogs that are loose by themselves. This year again, huskies and Alsatians again seem to have been the most prevalent breeds involved in attacks.

As for the specific campaigns—

John Finnie

I will stop you there, because we have a wide range of questions to get through. I was just looking for you to provide initial scoping. Following on from that comprehensive answer, there are several questions that I could ask, but I should probably not do so at this stage.

Could we hear from Ms Lovatt or Ms Mackenzie, please?

Fiona Lovatt (Flock Health Ltd)

I am a sheep vet. Last year, I worked as a consultant with Ipsos MORI, which was commissioned by the Scottish Government to undertake a survey, to which 1,900 sheep farmers responded. The survey was done in a proper stratified manner.

Over half the farmers—51 per cent—reported that they had had a dog attack on their livestock at some stage, and 14 per cent reported that they had had a dog attack in the previous 12 months of the survey. Although it was a statistically well-stratified survey, it had large margins of error, so confidence levels were a factor. Multiplying the figures gives a total of 7,000 dog attacks a year in Scotland, with confidence in a figure of between 4,000 and 10,000 attacks. However, we know that, for various reasons, only one third of farmers report dog attacks to the police.

Kirsteen Mackenzie (Perth and Kinross Council)

Our local authority tends not to deal directly with sheep-worrying incidents, as that is done by the police. However, we have assisted the police, on occasion.

I work with farmers in my job as an animal welfare officer, and I agree with Fiona Lovatt that a lot of them do not report incidents of sheep worrying, particularly if there has not been a physical attack. When no one is present or the dog runs off, there is no evidence. I have general conversations with farmers in which I have heard unofficial reports of sheep worrying that happened months earlier but was not reported.

I work with dog owners. We try to educate dog owners, but it is quite alarming how many are under the impression that their dog would not chase sheep in a field.

The Convener

Before I go back to John Finnie for another question, I will bring in Stewart Stevenson.

Stewart Stevenson

I have a short question for Inspector Dron. Do you have information that tells us what proportion of the dog population the husky and Alsatian breeds represent? That question might for the next panel rather than you, but I am slightly surprised to hear about huskies, because that is not a breed that I see often, although my neighbours have one.

Inspector Dron

We do not have numbers for those breeds, but we have found that huskies have become more popular, particularly among certain elements of society, as a status dog. Bizarrely, that has been influenced by “Game of Thrones”.

The Convener

Ah. Okay. We will go back to John Finnie.

John Finnie

I have to offer a spirited defence of the German shepherd dog, often known as the Alsatian, because it is a fine breed.

We have heard a bit about this from the panel. Much of the literature on livestock attacks and many of the responses that we have received state that there is a lack of evidence about the scale of the problem—Ms McKenzie talked about underreporting—and in some instances there is a lack of data collection. Do you believe that you have enough evidence to make an accurate assessment of how the problem should be addressed, including whether there is a need for new legislation? If there are evidence gaps, what would help to fill them? Can Inspector Dron, in particular, comment on how we get a figure for the number of attacks and on what constitutes their being considered a crime? I know that those are wide-ranging questions, but we are trying to understand whether there is an evidence base that would support the bill.

Inspector Dron

Mr Finnie raised several points. We have evidence, but as Fiona Lovatt highlighted and as we know, approximately one third of incidents are reported and the majority two thirds are not. However, we have many contacts throughout Scotland and people are becoming more aware of the situation. The problem will always exist; we need first and foremost to try to prevent incidents, which the figures show occur almost daily across Scotland. Do we have sufficient evidence? Over the past couple of years, there has certainly been increased scrutiny, and it is a priority of the Scottish partnership against rural crime to look at livestock attacks and worrying.

In terms of the bill, we have tried and will continue to try education at all levels, first and foremost. Our primary drive is to prevent incidents.

09:15  

There have been changes in farming in Scotland. Other breeds, such as camelids, are farmed here, and they deserve the same protection as sheep. The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 currently does not afford them that protection, so having that change is certainly positive.

The bill could also have a positive impact on people’s perception. Including the word “attack” as part of the legislation is key, because that drives home the gravity of the situation better than the word “worrying” does.

There is definitely better communication and involvement with our partners now. As I think everyone would agree, the education aspect is tremendous: it is the way forward, and we could never do enough of it. However, for the very small incidence of serious attacks that cause detriment to livestock and landowners, there is no deterrent. We find when we talk to folk whose dogs might have been involved in incidents that a lot of them know that there is no deterrent. It is to be hoped that that significant aspect, and the more serious incidents can be addressed through the legislation. Changing people’s perception might alter many owners’ views on what their dogs might or might not do.

John Finnie

I would like clarification, convener. If I have noted correctly what Inspector Dron said, he quoted the numbers of attacks in successive years, and went on to say that some were crimes. What determines that an attack is not a crime?

Inspector Dron

In contrast to the approach of the police in England and Wales, Police Scotland records every incident of livestock worrying that is reported to it. Once it has been recorded, police officers will attend. As Kirsteen Mackenzie and Fiona Lovatt have indicated, if the police arrive and find that, for example, a dog has been seen in a field, but there is not sufficient evidence to prove that an offence has occurred, that is still recorded as an incident. However, where evidence exists, a crime report will be recorded and the police will take as much evidence as possible, with a view to charging someone. They will consider whether to seek a dog control notice or, ultimately, to send the case to the procurator fiscal.

The Convener

Before we go any further I will bring in Fiona Lovatt.

Fiona Lovatt

The point about asking for evidence is really pertinent. In the responses to the committee’s consultation, I was a bit alarmed to read a number of people quoting the background to the huge study that we undertook last year with the Scottish Government, in which we stated that the existing evidence did not provide an adequate basis for assessing the true scale of the problem. That was the whole reason for undertaking the study.

More than 9,000 sheep farmers were contacted for the study. I can truly say that it was carried out because, previously, we did not have evidence that there had been an increase in the number of attacks; that was simply the perception. It could have been generated by social media, or farmers might have been making the problem sound worse than it was.

The whole study was carried out by an independent body, with the purpose of collating evidence. Statistically, it was extremely robust. To avoid the potential for what is known as recall bias—where people remember the most dramatic incident rather than the most recent—the interviewers were careful to pin people down and ask them only about the most recent incident in detail. We gave respondents the opportunity to give more information, but the statistics that went into the published study covered only the most recent incidents. We can therefore be fairly sure that we have robust evidence that 14 per cent of farmers have experienced such incidents in the past year, and that 50 per cent have experienced them at some time.

The question of what the penalties should be is not within my area of expertise, but I can say that we have evidence that incidents are a problem.

The Convener

Thank you, Fiona. John—I am afraid that we will have to move on to the next question.

I remind witnesses that those were just the first couple of questions for one panel member, and we have 11 panel members to get through. I am sure that we all want to ask lots of questions, but if they all take 20 minutes each we could be here until Christmas.

Our next question will come from Richard Lyle.

Richard Lyle (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)

Thank you, convener. I will try not to take 20 minutes.

Are the powers under existing dog control legislation sufficient? If not, why not?

Inspector Dron

I will be quick and to the point. The 1953 act is many years old—we are now in 2020—and it is a bit behind the times. Farming has changed, so extending the definition of livestock to include various animals such as camelids and ostriches is welcome, as are the words “attack” and “attacks” in the bill, because that increases the perception of severity, which is what the bill tries to achieve. Currently, deterrents—whether in the form of a fine, seizure of the dog or other measures—are not sufficient and the bill introduces deterrents that are a bit more sufficient to cover the small gap.

Richard Lyle

I put the same question to Kirsteen Mackenzie.

The Convener

I am afraid of us putting the same question to everyone, because of the ability to get through them all.

Richard Lyle

With the greatest respect, I know that you have a timeframe, but I would like to hear Kirsteen Mackenzie’s opinion.

The Convener

Before Kirsteen Mackenzie answers that, Richard, I note that my difficulty is that I cannot see which witnesses want to come in, because this is not like being in a committee meeting in which I can see everyone. However, I am delighted to bring people in when I can.

Kirsteen Mackenzie

I agree with Alan Dron. There is not a severe enough penalty at the moment.

Richard Lyle

I will move on to the next question.

As drafted, will the bill help to reduce the incidence of livestock worrying? Could the bill be improved to make it more effective?

Fiona Lovatt

As a sheep veterinary surgeon, my expertise is not in penalties, but I can tell you what the farmers thought. The top thing that they wanted was better public awareness and campaigns; the second was greater penalties; and the third was a requirement to have dogs on leads on agricultural land. Those were, by far, the most popular requests of the farmers who were interviewed.

Inspector Dron

I back up what Fiona Lovatt says. The new penalties aspect will hopefully reduce the number of attacks; it will go hand in hand with prevention work, which will always continue. Better education is important, but the introduction of better penalties is a good deterrent in itself.

Richard Lyle

Alan, you said that the previous time that the law was changed was 1953. That was in the 20th century and it is now the 21st century; it is nearly 70 years since the law was changed.

Inspector Dron

Absolutely. There have been additions to the legislation, such as the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010, but the 1953 act is the main one for livestock worrying.

Colin Smyth (South Scotland) (Lab)

I am sure that Richard Lyle well remembers the 1953 legislation.

In the interest of time, I will try to combine my questions, to which there are three parts.

A number of the written submissions that we have received highlight the need for a better use of our existing powers. Do the order-making powers in the bill complement or overlap the ability to use dog control notices? Would the increased use of dog control notices in cases of livestock worrying be beneficial? Are there any non-legislative methods that could be deployed to tackle the problem?

Kirsteen Mackenzie

We can and I have issued a couple of dog control notices to dog owners who have been involved in sheep worrying. The problem with dog control notices, especially in very rural areas, is that it is difficult to monitor compliance with them. We can put on the dog control notice that a dog must be kept on a lead, even in specific areas, but it is difficult to monitor compliance. They can and have been used in sheep-worrying incidents.

The Convener

Alan, do you want to—

Kirsteen Mackenzie

But I think—

The Convener

Sorry, Kirsteen. I cut you off; I thought you had finished.

Kirsteen Mackenzie

That is fine.

Inspector Dron

I support what Kirsteen said. In more instances, particularly those that are reported to the police, there should be more hand-in-hand working with local authority officers in relation to dog control notices. That is yet another stage where things could be joined up. Overall, what is being proposed adds another layer but it would be a benefit rather than making things more bureaucratic or causing any other issues.

Colin Smyth

Are there any other non-legislative methods that we should deploy alongside the legislation to help tackle the problem?

Inspector Dron

We run livestock campaigns every year through the Scottish partnership against rural crime. Last year, we had one large launch, then took it all around Scotland for local launches, trying to make it more personal. It is vital to make it more personal in every part of Scotland so that we can raise awareness, and that is something that should never stop. Prevention and education first and foremost will in time, hopefully, reduce incidents. We should also educate people through vet practices about every stage of owning a dog, from when it is a puppy to the end of its life.

The Convener

Fiona, was there anything that farmers brought up in relation to non-legislative actions that could be taken to prevent this?

Fiona Lovatt

The most popular measure, which 93 per cent of them wanted, was an increase in public awareness, partly because it is often a dog owner who is unaware or it is a one-off incident. For those cases, public awareness is important, because any dog could be an issue—it is education again.

Peter Chapman

I will look into the proposed penalties. The bill proposes that in the most serious cases the courts should be able to impose a custodial sentence. I wonder whether, instead of a custodial sentence, the courts could choose to impose a community payback order, for example ordering the offender to pay compensation, attend a course or carry out unpaid work. Would the use of community payback orders along those lines be appropriate for this type of crime?

Inspector Dron

Having the option would be an excellent step forward. What has to be borne in mind is that in a couple of the most serious incidents in Scotland, the person who was convicted was unfortunately, due to their circumstances, able neither to pay compensation nor to do community payback. That element of the bill would affect only a small minority of cases, so that is where the deterrent element, apart from anything else, is possibly more significant. Whether that is a community payback order or something else, that has to be another positive step to reduce such incidents.

Peter Chapman

I have a follow-up to that. I am sure that many farmers would like to receive compensation in severe cases as livestock worrying can cost them many thousands of pounds. The feeling is that the compensation element is lacking in the bill. What are your thoughts on that? You have already said that, in some cases, folk cannot pay, but I am sure that there are many cases in which people could pay.

09:30  

Inspector Dron

Absolutely. In a recent case that went to court, the person was convicted, the sheriff put in a compensation order, and the farmer who was at loss received full compensation, which was excellent. The system does work. Again, the thing to remember is that if the legislation is applied, there is no problem at all. The bill adds weight and strength to the deterrent elements and, hopefully, in the more serious incidents. It will not be carte blanche; the bill will definitely add weight in the more serious incidents, which hopefully will continue to be the least common incidents that we come across.

Fiona Lovatt

The average cost of an incident to a farmer is £700 per dog attack, and only 9 per cent of farmers receive compensation. Most farmers do not insure because they are worried about their premiums going up, so most of them are not currently compensated for the loss.

The Convener

Kirsteen, do you think that people realise the value of some of the sheep that are injured? Tups can be worth tens of thousands of pounds, from £20,000 to £200,000 or more. We have got a bid at the back—I have just sold my tup to Stewart Stevenson for £300,000. [Laughter.] The value of livestock is incredible.

Kirsteen Mackenzie

I do not think that the general public are aware of the financial implications for farmers if there is an attack on a sheep or even a sheep-worrying incident. Education and awareness are very important to help to reduce the number of incidents. As I have highlighted, we need to make people aware that any dog has the ability to cause a problem. The larger breeds are perhaps more likely to cause injury, but any dog can be responsible for causing an incident.

Peter Chapman

I think that there is general agreement among most commentators that the current penalties are too low. Some folk cite higher penalties for other animal welfare offences. The Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020 introduced the power to impose an unlimited fine and up to five years in prison. Would something along those lines be suitable in the most severe cases of attack?

Kirsteen Mackenzie

A severe penalty for the worst cases, even going as far as a ban on keeping dogs, would be very welcome.

Inspector Dron

I would echo what Kirsteen said. There are likely to be a small number of such circumstances, and each case would be taken on its merits. It would also depend on proportionality. As you say, tups can go for £250,000, whereas a blackface yow is maybe £70. Ultimately, though, anything that assists and is there as a deterrent cannot be a bad thing.

The Convener

Yows must be cheap where you are.

Peter Chapman

I will move on to my last question. The 2020 act enables the use of fixed-penalty notices for less serious worrying offences. I wonder whether that is also something that we should be thinking about for the bill.

Inspector Dron

It is another option. Police officers already have the option to give out fixed-penalty notices for a variety of offences. Again, it would depend on scale and proportionality.

Kirsteen Mackenzie

I agree with Inspector Dron. We already have fixed-penalty notices and they could be a deterrent for smaller offences.

The Convener

Thank you. Stewart Stevenson, you have the next question.

Stewart Stevenson

I will ask the second of my questions first, if I may. In light of her previous responses, I want to explore first with Kirsteen Mackenzie whether powers to exclude offending owners from walking their dogs on agricultural land would work. I ask that because of the previous comments about difficulties of enforcement in rural areas, which I understand. It might be useful to the committee to talk through the practicalities of such an approach and whether it would add anything to what else is there. Perhaps Kirsteen Mackenzie can start, and then I suspect Inspector Dron will want to come in.

Kirsteen Mackenzie

It is difficult to ban someone from walking in a particular area, especially a remote area, and to police or monitor that ban. Corroborating evidence that that person has been walking in that area can be difficult to find, which makes it difficult to prove that that person was there and doing what they should not have been be doing. The types of area that we are dealing with makes that quite difficult.

Stewart Stevenson

Before I move on, perhaps I could just take it a tiny step forward. Corroboration is of course needed if it is a criminal offence, but the alternative could be to provide a civil prohibition that would not require corroboration. Has that been discussed as an alternative approach?

Kirsteen Mackenzie

I am not sure about that. I just know that for any non-compliance offence, you tend to need corroboration.

Stewart Stevenson

That is fine.

The Convener

Kirsteen, how many animal welfare officers are there in Perth and Kinross Council?

Kirsteen Mackenzie

There are two full-time animal welfare officers and one dog control officer, who deals primarily with the dog-related incidents. I do dog control when the dog control officer is off. They cover the whole of Perth and Kinross Council area.

The Convener

So there are three people spread fairly thinly to make sure that the notices are complied with.

Kirsteen Mackenzie

Yes.

The Convener

Inspector Dron, Stewart Stevenson wanted to hear from you.

Inspector Dron

I totally support what Kirsteen has said. The practicalities of that are very difficult to enforce. If somebody is disqualified from owning or keeping a dog and you go to their home and there is a dog there, it is much easier to prove that they are not complying. However, if they are walking the dog in public, how do you catch them at that point? How do you follow them? The practicalities of that can be very difficult, particularly as Scotland is, as you know, a rural country.

Stewart Stevenson

I will move on to my next question, which is essentially a technical point about legal drafting, and the witnesses might well not want to comment. In the bill as drafted, are the order-making powers appropriate and proportionate? I suspect that no one will wish to comment on that, but this is the opportunity to do so if you wish.

The Convener

If you were all present in the room, you could all look away at the same time and I would know that none of you wanted to answer. However, Inspector Dron is on the screen. Alan, do you want to answer?

Inspector Dron

I would just say that it is not really for me to comment.

The Convener

I am trying to see whether any of the other witnesses wants to say anything but no one is indicating, so we will move on to the next set of questions from Angus MacDonald.

Angus MacDonald (Falkirk East) (SNP)

We know that there are issues with enforcement of the current livestock-worrying legislation. The bill aims to tackle some of those issues by introducing increased powers for investigation. What would you say are the biggest challenges that you currently face in enforcing the existing legislation on livestock worrying, and do you think that the bill will help to address those challenges?

The Convener

I call Kirsteen, to be followed by Angus, just for a slightly different order. Kirsteen, do you want to head off on that?

Kirsteen Mackenzie

It would probably be better if Alan Dron answered that question, as his is currently the enforcement body.

The Convener

Alan, sorry—I just called you Angus. I am getting myself confused already, and it is only 20 minutes to 10.

Inspector Dron

The bill will certainly help with enforcement. It might instil a bit more of a perception of the seriousness of incidents. We will have the bill to refer to, so we can use the terminology for better, more targeted campaigning. Everything plays its part. We have got to educate from schools upwards—for example, at vets’—and go around Scotland trying to do as much as we can to raise awareness, but we will have the bill at the back of us if all of that has failed. At least there is something that has weight, and people will sit up and take notice of it. They will not think that they will get away with it or get a small fine.

Internally, our police officers are constantly trying to raise awareness and promote better education about the offence, and slowly but surely that is starting to work. That might be why the ratio of incidents that are investigated and result in a crime report to the number that are reported to the police is quite small.

The Convener

I welcome Christine Grahame, who is attending the meeting as Emma Harper’s committee substitute.

Christine Grahame (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)

I apologise for being late. I had put the meeting in my diary for 10 o’clock, not 9 o’clock.

The Convener

Apology very much accepted. You have missed some interesting evidence, but I am sure that you will catch up.

Oliver Mundell (Dumfriesshire) (Con)

My three questions are directed to Fiona Lovatt, as they relate to veterinary matters. In the interests of time, I am going to ask all three of them together, if that is okay.

What additional resources would vets require in order to play a statutory role—for example, in relation to training and remuneration—and does any legal or operational clarity need to be provided to support vets in playing such a role? Can Ms Lovatt briefly describe the procedures that would be involved in collecting evidence when a dog is brought to a practice? Can she foresee any circumstances in which those procedures could jeopardise the health or welfare of the dog?

The Convener

There are a lot of questions there, Fiona. Head off, as it were.

Fiona Lovatt

If a dog is presented to a vet, one of the key things is that the vet generally needs to have permission from the owner to treat the dog. For example, we sometimes have cases in which a police officer has called us to a road traffic accident and we need permission from that police officer to put an animal to sleep. We need permission from somebody. I foresee a similar sort of issue if a dog was brought into a practice by anyone other than its owner. That would put the vet in a particularly awkward position, and they would be unable to make a decision for fear of getting in trouble themselves. I think that it would have to be the police who were able to give that permission.

Forensic evidence is not actually my area of expertise; I am a sheep specialist, not a dog specialist. There would be a need for training. However, it would not necessarily be appropriate for every small, rural practitioner who is dealing with a mixed bag of issues to do that training, because it could be quite a rare, sporadic event. Vets in the labs at rural colleges like Scotland's Rural College would be more appropriate. As veterinary surgeons, we often send animals to that lab for a post mortem. There could be a specialist in the regional laboratory who would be able to advise and take responsibility.

09:45  

Oliver Mundell

That is helpful. You said that you feel that the police would have to enforce the offence—I know that other members are going to ask questions in that area—but, as it is currently drafted, the bill gives powers for agents to be appointed to exercise certain provisions. Do you think that it would present a problem for vets if someone other than the police brought in a dog?

Fiona Lovatt

The vet would always get permission. After a road traffic accident, for example, the vet would want a police officer to say that they gave permission and that someone would pay for the service. A vet is a private enterprise; therefore, they are watching their own back and their own pocket. They need somebody both to give permission legally and to stand the cost. A person from the SRUC laboratories would already have some sort of Government permission, I suppose.

The Convener

I will put a question to Alan Dron. If a dog is seized and taken to a vet for examination, to identify whether an offence has happened, and some evidence is collected—such as wool between its teeth—will a police officer be in a position, under the bill, to sign for a vet doing that? Will they take responsibility, or do we need to clarify that in the bill?

Inspector Dron

Again, it might come down to the circumstances, the extent of the injury and the case.

Going back to Fiona Lovatt’s point, in wildlife crime cases, the SRUC currently conducts a lot of inquires at the request of the police and the funding for those inquiries is provided by the Scottish Government. Therefore, a precedent is set for wildlife crime that could be extended to livestock incidents.

Police take dogs to the vet in very few instances. The only time that I am aware of that happening is when the farmer or landowner has shot the dog. The police will take possession of it and take it to a vet to ensure that, if it is still alive, it is not suffering and to have it treated or to ensure that, if it has died, it was shot properly and there was no undue suffering. Those are the only circumstances that I am aware of in which the police would seize the dog and take it to a vet.

The Convener

I suspect that, in most instances of wildlife crime, the police are dealing with evidence, such as in poisoning or shooting incidents in which the animal or bird has died. However, there might be an instance when a dog has been caught, there is no owner present and the police want to take it to the vet to gather evidence of an attack on sheep—which, as has been discussed, involves the collection of forensic evidence. Do you feel comfortable that the police have the ability to take the dog to the vet, sign for that work to be carried out and take responsibility not only for that decision but also for the cost? Wool between a dog’s teeth will disappear fairly quickly, so I would like to know that there is sufficient provision in the bill to cover that.

Inspector Dron

In the few instances in which that happened, the police would contact the relevant fiscal, because the issue would largely come down to cost—the cost of seizure and of homing. We might need to keep the dog for, say, 24 hours so that samples could be taken, and that would involve contacting a vet to come out. In such a case, we would have a duty of care towards the dog—we would have to feed and water it and so on.

We highlighted in our submission that there is a need for clarity, particularly when it comes to any financial implications regarding policing, homing and dealing with the veterinary aspects that Fiona Lovatt highlighted.

The Convener

Oliver, are you happy with that?

Oliver Mundell

I am.

The Convener

The next questions come from Mike Rumbles.

Mike Rumbles (North East Scotland) (LD)

Good morning. I am concerned about section 4 of the bill, which is headed, “Powers to authorise entry, search, seizure etc.” In my view, it gives authority in law for a police officer—or, indeed, an appointed inspector—to enter premises without a search warrant. Does that not represent a major and rather disproportionate move away from the current position in Scots law, whereby a police officer must show just cause to a sheriff or a justice of the peace in order to get a warrant to search premises?

I am not talking about the power that a police constable has to enter premises if he believes that a crime is under way or about to take place; I am talking about the power in the bill to search for evidence. Is that not a major departure from Scots law?

The Convener

I guess that Alan Dron is in the spotlight again.

Inspector Dron

We would liaise very closely with the fiscal on that. You are right that what is proposed represents an unusual step. We would need to make sure that there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that evidence that was connected to the alleged commission of the offence of livestock worrying was to be found in the specified premises and that there were no other means of obtaining that evidence.

At the moment, we will try to explore every opportunity to gain as much evidence as possible before moving to that stage. If the bill is passed, that provision might end up being used on a case-by-case basis, in conjunction with contacting the local fiscal for the area. I would suggest that that would be done only after as much normal, commonsense policing and investigation as possible had been carried out, which had led us to the point at which, in other circumstances, we would need to apply for a warrant to get the evidence in question.

Mike Rumbles

Yes—under the law as it stands, the police would need to apply for a warrant. I absolutely understand everything that you have said. However, the bill would give the police—and, indeed, inspectors that other organisations had appointed—the legal authority not to apply for a warrant if they did not need to. Section 4 says that. I am very surprised that such a provision has appeared in the bill in relation to livestock crime, awful as that is. It marks a major departure from what everybody accepts is one of the safeguards in Scots law to prevent undue searches. Do you agree that the bill changes that position?

Inspector Dron

I think that it would be an interesting step. I could foresee the police going to a house, having tried to gain as much evidence as possible. If we were refused entry by the householder after explaining why we were there, we would need to give due regard to the right of any potential suspect not to self-incriminate. Any suspect would need to be cautioned prior to any questioning.

I think it would be extremely unusual if we got to that stage. A lot of clarification would need to be provided. I could also see it being contested in court if the police gained access to premises without obtaining a warrant—unless, of course, they were welcomed in by the house owner, who said, for example, “It was my dog. I was actually going to contact you.” I could see the power being exercised on a case-by-case basis.

Mike Rumbles

Yes, I understand that the police would operate the provision sensibly, but such cases will arise if the bill is passed, because it will change the law.

The bill actually says, in proposed new section 2A(2) of the 1953 act, that, in relation to the need for a warrant,

“This subsection is complied with in relation to premises if ... either ... admission to the premises has been refused, or ... such a refusal may reasonably be expected”.

So, even if you expect a refusal, according to the change in the law outlined here, you could enter any premises to search for evidence. That is what the bill says, is it not?

Inspector Dron

It would appear so but, in practical terms, when we got into the premises, as police officers, we would need to tread carefully because we might be there for one reason but observe something else, at which point we would need to stop and possibly get a warrant.

Mike Rumbles

I understand what you are saying, and it sounds very reasonable, but our job as MSPs is to look at the legislation that is presented to us, and it certainly seems quite clear, as we go further into this, that the bill would change the law to give the police, if they were so inclined, the power to enter premises to search without a warrant. It is interesting that you agree with my interpretation that it would change the law.

The Convener

Stewart Stevenson wants to come in, but I have a quick question to ask first. Do you feel that you need that bit to be included to make the bill worth while, or is there enough in the bill to make it worth while without that bit?

Inspector Dron

Personally, after 28 years of policing, I would suggest, from a policing perspective, that it might not be required, for a variety of reasons. It might overcomplicate things. We might end up having to get a warrant anyway. We would always be on stronger grounds if we had a warrant. I also think that there would be very few cases in which the police would be acting in relation to that situation anyway.

Stewart Stevenson

Is Inspector Dron familiar with the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951, which, under section 11(4), granted powers of search to water bailiffs appointed by a salmon fisheries board without the necessity of a warrant? Lest you wonder why I ask that question, I point out that, having been a water bailiff in 1968, I am aware that I had that power, even as a student doing a summer job, when I was fulfilling that role. I wonder whether you are familiar with that power, as it may not be quite as novel as my colleague was suggesting.

The Convener

I am sure that you did not exercise that power in 1951, Stewart.

Stewart Stevenson

Actually, I did.

The Convener

Oh, well, there you go—that ages you. I ask Alan Dron to answer that question.

Inspector Dron

My colleague, who is a wildlife crime co-ordinator, will be familiar with that aspect. As to how often that power would be used and in what circumstances, I would not know and could not comment on that.

Stewart Stevenson

Just to be clear, it was not in 1951 that I exercised that power.

The Convener

Oh—sorry. Also, just for the avoidance of doubt, I should point out that, in the past, I have declared an interest in wild salmon fisheries. As I made a comment, I ought to make that clear—not that it is really that relevant.

Maureen Watt has the next question.

Maureen Watt

This question is probably for Inspector Dron. You will be aware that the bill suggests that additional capacity should be provided by an “inspecting body”, whatever that might be. Would you find that beneficial?

Inspector Dron

Anything that can help policing, police resourcing and education certainly cannot be detrimental. I am trying to think of practical examples. There would need to be clarity about who would have primacy. Under the current law, it is the police who can investigate but, in lots of rural locations, someone else will attend—whether it is someone from the local authority, the dog warden or whoever—to assist a police officer with corroboration.

The circumstances are similar for fly-tipping. Who has primacy? Is it SEPA? Is it local authorities? Is it the police? Sometimes, the lines are blurred and victims or those who phone in do not know who they should contact or expect to do something about the incident or offence.

10:00  

Maureen Watt

The Scottish SPCA said in its written evidence that it would not want to be that body. I am picking up from what we have discussed today that you would rather a statutory body, such as the local authority, be responsible.

Inspector Dron

There needs to be clarity. In practical terms, as Kirsteen Mackenzie has already highlighted, Perth and Kinross Council has only three officers to cover what is a large geographical area.

To ensure a better quality of service—one that is provided as and when required, and policing is 24/7—if there were to be any additional bodies, who they were would need to be clear, as would what they could offer and when they would go out. In addition, the people they were attending would have to know who had primacy—indeed, they would need to know who to contact in the first instance.

Maureen Watt

The police would have to progress any prosecutions, so Police Scotland would have to be involved.

Inspector Dron

Yes. By and large, cases are submitted to the Procurator Fiscal Service through the police. As Kirsteen Mackenzie highlighted, local authority dog wardens can issue dog control notices. There are other responses—other avenues can be taken to try to resolve an incident, such as action to educate people .

Maureen Watt

How often is video footage of livestock worrying or a dog attack on animals used as evidence?

Inspector Dron

Its use is increasing. The police now have individual personal data assistants, which are being rolled out to officers so that they can capture normal, static photographs. There have been occasions when a farmer, a landowner or someone out walking has captured an incident. Anything that can be submitted as best evidence in a case to the Procurator Fiscal Service would obviously be submitted.

The Convener

Does Kirsteen Mackenzie want to come in on that question about additional powers, given that such powers might involve the council?

Kirsteen Mackenzie

Obviously, we already have powers to issue dog control notices, which we use. We would welcome Police Scotland still being the primary agency. We would quite happily work jointly and have protocols with Police Scotland. We are always happy to be an assisting agency and to work with Police Scotland.

The Convener

I know that Fiona Lovatt is still present. She will probably be the one to answer the questions that Christine Grahame is, I think, about to ask.

Christine Grahame

My question is about money, so I do not think so, although I could be wrong.

Financial, human and technical resources will be required as a result of the legislation. Nearly every piece of legislation comes with a cost attached to it. [Interruption.] I am so sorry—the phone is going off. What a morning!

Of course, the cost is to some extent predicated on who or what the inspecting body is. My question is for all the witnesses. What funding would they require to ensure that the legislation works?

The Convener

We will go to Alan Dron first, not Fiona Lovatt. I will give all the witnesses a chance to answer that question.

Inspector Dron

To be honest, I have no idea. Again, a lot of this would be done and therefore subsumed under normal policing, as it is at the moment. Any financial considerations usually come in if a dog is seized, in which case, as was mentioned earlier, it is about deciding whether contacting the Procurator Fiscal Service is proportionate and who is to pay the bill for the keep of the animal—its homing and welfare.

The Convener

Okay. Does Kirsteen Mackenzie want to come in on that?

Kirsteen Mackenzie

The local authority is stretched financially at the moment. Our resources are limited at any time. We deal with lots of other things and, if we were going to be involved in a large education programme, we would need more finances. At the moment, the council does not have the resources to provide that out of current budgets.

Fiona Lovatt

I am not sure about the on-going costs, but the survey that we undertook showed that the current cost of dog attacks to sheep farms in Scotland is £5.5 million a year. Farmers are bearing those costs; only 9 per cent of them receive money for those attacks.

Christine Grahame

It is extremely difficult. You can correct me, but I think that the Scottish SPCA can charge for keeping an animal, pending the owner’s trial for the dog being out of control or savaging sheep or other beasts. Am I correct about that? It used to have huge bills for that. I know that Mike Flynn is giving evidence later, but perhaps Inspector Dron could remind me of who pays for that.

Inspector Dron

I think that the Scottish SPCA currently pays. There is also a difficulty if a dog that has been worrying livestock is taken but no owner is found. Who pays for that dog’s keep? That needs to be clarified from the outset. In some circumstances, an owner just signs their dog over. Does that mean that the Scottish SPCA has to rehome it? Someone from the Dogs Trust will be giving evidence later on, and they might be able to take that question further.

Christine Grahame

Thank you—that is fine.

The Convener

Finally, Emma Harper, whose bill we are discussing, would like to ask some questions. Good morning, Emma.

Emma Harper (South Scotland) (SNP)

Good morning. It has been interesting to hear everybody’s contributions. I thank the witnesses for their diligence in answering the questions and members for their questioning.

I have a couple of questions. Are there more incidents in one part of the country versus other areas—for example, the Highlands versus the south of Scotland? Are we able to take apart the data to look at where more incidents occur?

Inspector Dron

Fortunately, one of our colleagues trawls for information by policing division on a daily basis, so we know exactly where in the 13 policing divisions there are instances of livestock attacks and worrying. Unfortunately, incidents happen throughout Scotland. We have recorded incidents in Shetland, Orkney and the Western Isles; this year, some of the worst were in Oban. One of the worst incidents that we are aware of happened at Inveraray. A lot of the higher numbers are near the central belt, as you can imagine, just because of volume. However, incidents also occur in areas where there are core paths, such as the west Highland way. Conic hill is a particular focus for incidents in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park. Incidents happen in places where you expect people to be out walking dogs, but they are spread throughout the country. There are no specific areas where the incidence is higher than it is in others.

Emma Harper

Has coronavirus affected the ability to monitor, capture or look at the data? Did you see a reduction when people were in lockdown and an increase when folk started escaping from their homes and going out with their dogs for their daily exercise?

Inspector Dron

Because we were very aware of the issue, we were starting to gather stats on it. There was going to be a campaign this year, so we wanted to compare figures from 1 January to 31 May this year and last year. We found a significant decrease in the number of incidents. From 1 January to 31 May this year, 120 incidents of livestock attack were reported, of which 52 were recorded as crimes. Sixty-eight dogs were accompanied; 46 were not. The numbers became significantly lower as the Covid restrictions went on.

From speaking to a lot of landowners, walkers and so on, I think that those figures inform and complement what we had thought: during lockdown, more folks were at home, and went out with their dog to walk. That is why there was a spike that resulted in that figure of 68 cases in which somebody—the owner or a person responsible for the dog—was present, as opposed to only 46, this time round, in which they were not.

As the lockdown restrictions have eased, there has been a slight increase, particularly in the central belt area, as folk try, for good reason, to get back out and about. However, it has not been a dramatic increase, which is encouraging.

Fiona Lovatt

I do not have any data relating to lockdown. You also asked about incidents in the different regions of Scotland. According to the stratified survey that we undertook, there is a higher risk of dog attacks in Lothian and east central Scotland, with a 28 per cent prevalence in each of those areas, and fewer attacks in the north-east of Scotland, for which the prevalence is 8 per cent.

Emma Harper

I have a final question, convener—and thank you for allowing me to ask my questions.

When we explored drafting the provisions on seizing a dog and taking it to a vet, we included the possibility that a vet might already be on site, examining sheep or attending to injuries. Therefore, arranging for a dog to be

“examined by a veterinary surgeon”

does not necessarily mean taking it to a veterinary practice. It might mean that a vet who is already in attendance at the site of an offence could collect evidence. At that time, we were thinking that an emetic could be used to make the dog sick in order to collect wool, or of using swabs for analysis, to compare blood from the dog’s mouth with the sheep’s blood.

Does that language need to be clarified? Taking a dog to a vet, or having a vet assess a dog, does not necessarily mean that it has to be taken to a veterinary practice.

Fiona Lovatt

Vets would need training and clear guidelines on what was expected of them and who was asking them to undertake that work. If a vet is already on site, the farmer has presumably called them there to attend to the sheep, so the cost is to the farmer.

Perhaps a fine is an appropriate detriment for the dog owner.

The Convener

Inspector Dron, do you want to answer?

Inspector Dron

Yes. In many instances, the first port of call—particularly if a farmer or livestock owner sees their animal suffering—is to contact a vet to come out. A lot of evidence gathering can be done at the scene. However, again, that ultimately comes down to finance. Would the vet bill the farmer? The farmer, landowner or livestock owner would have the initial outlay, to cover the vet’s costs, and might be looking to get some sort of compensation further down the line.

The Convener

Emma, does that answer your questions?

Emma Harper

Yes, that is great. Thank you, convener. The session has already given me a lot to think about.

The Convener

Thank you very much. Before we end the session, I have a question for Fiona Lovatt.

I know farmers who avoid using pastures in areas where they know people walk dogs and where there are likely to be dog attacks. I also know farmers who bring sheep in in the evening because they are worried about the sheep being left at night. Do you have any evidence on that issue? It may suggest that farmers are undertaking extra work to try to mitigate the risk of attacks.

Fiona Lovatt

Yes, absolutely. We asked people what measures they employed to cope with dog attacks, and which measures they thought were effective and which they thought were ineffective. Fifty-two per cent said that they talked to the dog owners; 60 per cent thought that that was effective, and 30 per cent thought that it was not effective. They also mentioned putting up signs.

However, people said that moving sheep to a different area was the most effective measure. Having identified a pasture as dangerous because of dog attacks, they used another area. Twenty-two per cent of farmers said that they move sheep to a different area; of those, 72 per cent thought that that was effective and 19 per cent did not. That was the most effective thing that farmers thought they could do.

We asked a lot of questions about the emotional impact. Farmers really dislike the idea of conflict—of speaking to a dog owner and getting an aggressive response. Often, the dog owner is very upset or angry, and the farmer is worried about how they will react, when they themselves, or their family, are emotionally very distressed. It is a fraught time.

The Convener

Thank you very much.

There are no other questions. I thank the witnesses for their evidence and for the time that they have given the committee.

10:16 Meeting suspended.  

10:25 On resuming—  

The Convener

Welcome back. I remind members to ensure that their mobile phones are on silent.

I welcome our second panel of witnesses, who are from organisations that represent dog owners and countryside access interests: Mike Flynn, chief superintendent of the Scottish SPCA; Steve Jenkinson, access and countryside adviser to the Kennel Club; Paula Boyden, director of Dogs Trust; and Bridget Jones, strategic paths and projects manager at NatureScot.

I advise our witnesses that, if they want to come in on a question, they should indicate that in the chat function. I will then ensure that I bring them in, but I will not have the chance to do so for all four of them on every question. As I said to our earlier witnesses, they should also keep an eye on me. If anyone goes off on too much of a tangent, I might wiggle my pen at them to bring them back on track.

Our first question is from John Finnie, who is attending the meeting remotely.

John Finnie

Good morning, panel. Convener, I am conscious that the nature of the questions that I posed to our earlier panel brought lengthy answers so, if I may, for this panel I will combine the two questions that I asked earlier. I am sure that our current witnesses will have been listening in to the earlier panel, so they will know that my questions have a number of parts.

In your professional experience, what is your assessment of the scale and nature of the problem of protecting livestock? Do we have enough evidence to make an accurate assessment of that and of how it should be addressed? Is there a need for new legislation? If there is such evidence, how might we overcome such problems?

Mike Flynn (Scottish SPCA)

Good morning, Mr Finnie. Good morning, convener. I thank the committee for inviting the Scottish SPCA to the meeting.

The survey that Fiona Lovatt mentioned in her earlier evidence was very good. It clearly showed that, as the Scottish SPCA has always known, such incidents are widely underreported. Many farmers just do not see the point in reporting them, because they think that the dog owners will never be traced. A lot of them also will not claim on their insurance, for fear of their premiums going up.

The Convener

Steve Jenkinson wants to come in on that.

Steve Jenkinson (Kennel Club)

Good morning. The Kennel Club does not keep data on such incidents but, as we pointed out in our submission, we are mindful of the huge disparity between elements in the available data. At the end of the day, though, one incident is one too many.

I will make full disclosure by saying that, on my livestock holding here in Orkney, I have been a victim of livestock worrying, and some of my animals have been killed. Whether it happens more or less frequently is not the issue, though; instead, we need to focus on the victims, especially the farmers.

At the time of such an incident, it is easy for the victim to feel vengeful and to want penalties to be imposed. However, when the police came and asked me what I wanted to happen, I just wanted the worrying to stop and not to happen again. In advising the Kennel Club, and in general, my focus has therefore been to say that figures on how often livestock worrying happens might be interesting, but knowing why it happens will provide us with the best interventions that might change things.

We have already heard about two threads of the problem. The first is free-ranging dogs, such as those that escape from home, which account for about half of incidents; and the other is dogs who are out with walkers. The key point is that interventions to deal with those two aspects are very different. There is a lot of talk to the effect that having greater penalties would be a better deterrent and would make it clear to owners that their dogs killing sheep or other livestock is not acceptable. I am not aware of any dog owner who has ever thought that that was acceptable. They might be misguided and not understand that their dog running round in a field of ewes can cause them to abort.

10:30  

Legislation to deal with repeat, reckless, wilful offenders is useful but, for us, the issue is more about asking why sheep worrying is happening and getting the right interventions than it is about arguing over the huge disparity between the figures. We still need to do something, but we need to be sure that we are doing the right thing. We are not sure that lower numbers will help us get the right interventions to help the farmers who suffer.

John Finnie

In the light of what you have said, do you feel that there is a need for new legislation? I would like the other witness to answer that as well.

Steve Jenkinson

It follows on from that. Because of my holding, I am an NFU Scotland member as well. The NFUS reports that, when dog control notices have been used, they have been useful. The great thing about them is that they can deal with why a problem has happened. If it has happened because a dog has escaped, a dog control notice can require someone to keep their boundaries correctly secure. If children were not walking their dog responsibly, it can deal with that. Specific measures can be targeted to deal with the problem.

It is hard to say what effect the legislation will have on the people who wilfully cause sheep worrying, whoever they may be—they are a very small minority. If I am honest, there is no reason to oppose greater penalties per se, but the bill seems to be a missed opportunity to deal with the causes. For example, if a pedestrian was killed by a driver who came off a bend in the road, we would clearly think that that would not have happened if that person had not been driving that car, but we do not just penalise that driver, because the reason for the accident could have been bad road design or a fault in the car, or the person could have been drink driving. There could have been all sorts of reasons, and we deal with the reasons why things happen.

My interest is in seeing the problem not happen so much, if at all, to me and many other farmers. On whether we should focus on penalties and whether they are a big deterrent, what could be a bigger deterrent than your much-loved family animal being shot? If we are going to have legislation, it would be nice if it focused on making a difference. It is great that the member has introduced the bill, but it seems a missed opportunity to make a difference by dealing with the underlying causes. That is the disappointment.

Bridget Jones (NatureScot)

Good morning, everyone. On the first part of the question, on the evidence of the scale of the issue, we do not hold data specifically on these kinds of incidents. However, we get feedback through the local access forum meetings with our national access forum and it would be fair to say that behavioural issues to do with dog ownership and responsible access get raised fairly regularly. Any evidence that is out there is very useful for us, particularly because a large part of our work is to encourage responsible behaviour and encourage compliance with the Scottish outdoor access code. That aspect is important.

As other folk have said, the legislation could do with being updated. It would be useful to update the definitions of terms such as livestock and to bring the legislation into this century. We see the role of enforcement as being one element of how to help manage people’s enjoyment of the outdoors, but management and education are as important, if not more so, in ensuring prevention.

Paula Boyden (Dogs Trust)

We accept that livestock crime is underreported. If we are to be able to move forward, first and foremost, we need good, robust recording and reporting. What I mean by that is standardised recording of incidents. We were very encouraged to hear that the Scottish partnership against rural crime is recording all incidents, and it is great that Scotland has a single police force, which makes life a lot easier. What we are seeing from reports from the National Police Chiefs Council, for example, is that there is a huge variation. We need to make sure that recording is standardised, not only so that we know what we are dealing with but so that, should the bill be passed, we can assess whether it is being beneficial. Reporting at the moment focuses on the numbers, but we might need to look at the impact or the level of suffering that has been encountered by the farm.

Do we need new legislation? I would say that we do. The current legislation is outdated in terms of the penalties and the species covered. Again, I agree with the other witnesses that this is only one part of it. The challenge for this legislation is that its primary impact comes after the event has happened. We need to look at prevention, whether it be education or management, but we need to look a little bit more broadly to see whether we can stop these incidents from happening in the first place.

The Convener

John, I think that Stewart Stevenson wants to come in. I would be very happy to come back to you after that, if you have further questions to ask.

John Finnie

I think that my questions have been covered, convener.

Stewart Stevenson

I suspect that my question is for Paula Boyden. What proportion of the dog population in Scotland or in the UK is represented by huskies and Alsatians—German shepherds?

Paula Boyden

Sadly, we do not have that data. How many dogs are in Scotland is a matter of question. The most current figures that we have are from the Pet Food Manufacturing Association, which does an annual survey. Its estimate is that there are more than 700,000 dogs in Scotland.

I should sound a note of caution. The most prevalent breeds for attacking livestock appear to be huskies and German shepherds, but I would ask whether huskies and German shepherds are more prone to that activity, or whether that is a reflection of the sorts of owners that those dogs have. We have to be cautious about focusing on those particular breeds.

The Convener

Mike Flynn, you wanted to come back in on a point that was raised in that answer.

Mike Flynn

I just wanted to go back to what the gentleman said. We are here to represent not just dogs but all animals in Scotland. Having witnessed some sheep attacks, I know that they can be horrendous. People must remember that we have been doing education on this for at least 30 years, and I know that Alan Dron’s group has been doing it, certainly for the past couple of years, along with the National Sheep Association.

We must remember that practically 90 per cent of all these attacks are preventable. There is a basic premise in law that you are not allowed to let your dog stray and, if you have a dog, it must be kept under control. If everybody had their dog under control, this would not happen.

Sometimes when an attack happens, it is inadvertent, but there are repeat offenders. I am therefore fully supportive of Emma Harper’s bill. We must have some kind of sustainable penalty. The only time I see the number of attacks going down in a region is when a farmer takes the law into his own hands and kills the dog, which he is perfectly entitled to do if it is attacking his livestock. That seems to bring the prevalence in that area down for a while. However, if somebody gets a £50 fine and their dog back, that means nothing to anyone.

The Convener

John Finnie, does that raise further points for you, or are you happy with the issues that you have raised?

John Finnie

This is a bit off script, but I have a question for Mr Flynn. Accepting that legislation is about how we control how humans behave, is there ever a situation in which perhaps an aberration, such as a brain tumour, could mean that a dog’s behaviour is no longer predictable? I appreciate that you would say that the dog should be under control in any case, but I wonder whether you wish to comment on that.

Mike Flynn

Yes, there could be a veterinary reason, and that is one example where a veterinary surgeon’s examination would be good. However, if the dog is under control, it would not matter if it had a mini stroke—it would not make any difference.

I can think of a couple of occasions in my 34 years with the society when an owner has lost a dog that strayed and has done literally everything to try to get it back—they have informed the police, the society and dog wardens. I can remember a case in West Lothian when it took us three weeks to put out a live trap to catch the dog. It had been worrying sheep, but everybody was trying everything. With other people, if their dog goes out, they just do not care. It is down to responsible ownership.

Richard Lyle

Will the bill as drafted help to reduce the number of incidents of livestock worrying, and can it be improved to make it more effective?

Paula Boyden

I certainly anticipate that the bill will reduce incidents through increased penalties as well as the realisation that it is not a victimless crime and that the impacts on the farming community are huge. One would hope that, with some high-profile cases that show the impact and the losses that are incurred—I do not mean just financial losses—the bill will ultimately send a salutary message to irresponsible dog owners who allow their dogs to stray.

Steve Jenkinson

I will first go back to the question about dog breeds. The Kennel Club’s view is that, as Paula Boyden said, any dog can be a problem, so looking at specific breeds can be a red herring. However, just out of interest, according to the register of pedigree dogs, German shepherds were the eighth most frequently registered dog in the past year. Huskies were not in the top 20, but 397 husky puppies were registered last year.

On the question of how the bill can help, thinking of the two reasons why such incidents can happen, we know from studies that have been done on sites that are heavily used by dog walkers and which have eliminated sheep worrying that good information to help dog owners avoid conflict is key. People who go out walking their dogs want to have a happy, healthy and hassle-free walk. Nobody goes out thinking, “I hate sheep,” or whatever. On sites—particularly local authority sites—where people turn up and see credible signage that says that, if you go one way, there are sheep, and if you go a different way, there are no sheep, people will choose the least-hassle option. The information needs to be credible and timely, but we have seen with sites where graziers were going to take their animals away because of the frequency of livestock worrying that, when people turned up in the car park and good information was provided, that dealt with the problem.

We know that there is sometimes a problem with signage. I am mindful that the insurer NFU Mutual says that only 27 per cent of farmers use signage anyway but, if a sign saying that there are sheep or lambs in a field is left up all year and people have gone past it three or four times and there have been no livestock there, people will ignore it, just as much as people ignore signs if they are going down the M9 and are told that there are roadworks ahead but they do not see any.

For 85 per cent of dog walkers, exercising their dog off the lead is the single most important thing for them. That in no way justifies livestock worrying, but we need to remember that walking your dog is one of the top two lifestyle factors for keeping people active and healthy in Scotland. We therefore need to help people to make good choices. If their dog is happy when they walk, they will walk more. We should not suppress that, but we should help people to make good choices.

One could take a principled approach and say that dogs should always be under control in the countryside because they are a danger to themselves, never mind other people. However, we should consider the approach to other types of rural crime such as theft. I have been to events run by SPARC and by Alan Dron and others that involve telling people about what they can do to prevent rural theft on their land. We feel that, equally, there needs to be a partnership approach on the issue of dogs that involves bodies helping farmers and providing the right information. As I said, no dog walker goes out intending to have such problems.

On the point that 50 per cent of dogs that are involved in incidents are free roaming, there is a need to raise awareness of that. I often speak to dog owners who say that their dog is a country dog, a rural dog or a crofter’s dog or whatever. They say, “He goes away, he comes back and he doesn’t cause any harm,” but, actually, they do not know that. It is good to report free-ranging dogs to the local authority and get a dog control notice.

10:45  

Richard Lyle

Before I ask my next question, I would like to ask Steve Jenkinson about something else. I used to be a dog owner—I had two Yorkshire terriers. The Kennel Club is a respected organisation. Does it have anything on its website about sheep worrying? I cannot find anything. What is the position of the Kennel Club? Does it try to inform people who have dogs about the situation?

Steve Jenkinson

I act on behalf of the Kennel Club, and the Scottish Kennel Club comes on board with that. The key thing for us is that this is an issue for all dogs, not just pedigree dogs. In Scotland, we focus our attention on working with the national access forum. One of the key things that we have done is ensure that the information is clear. When we talk about worrying or whatever, our message has always been that it is not acceptable for dogs to approach livestock or wildlife. The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing highlights the work that NatureScot has done to produce clear, bullet-point messages to help people understand the problem. We feel that there must be a joint approach. To be honest, the issue does not just involve the people who visit our website. We need to take the message to people who are going out for a walk or something, not just those people who have a pedigree dog.

I hope that helps. The SPICe briefing contains the wording that was agreed by us, NFU Scotland and SPARC. There is a recognition that the wording was previously too woolly and unclear, so we need to push out that new wording.

Richard Lyle

Perhaps you can ask the Kennel Club to update its website.

What is the understanding of our witnesses of the most common circumstances around livestock worrying?

Steve Jenkinson

Would you like me to answer that, convener? I am aware that I have been speaking quite a lot.

The Convener

I would like someone else to come in, if possible. Bridget Jones could answer next, followed by Paula Boyden, and then we will come back to you, Steve.

I remind witnesses that they should keep an eye on me, because I tend to waggle my pen when I want to bring somebody else in. I want to give everyone a fair crack of the whip, and the other option is to cut the microphones, which I object to doing.

Bridget Jones

On the information that is provided to the public about responsible behaviour and dog ownership, the Scottish countryside access code website and associated websites have all that information on them. As Stephen Jenkinson alluded, most—if not all—of that advice is produced in collaboration by NFU Scotland, Scottish Land & Estates, SPARC, the Kennel Club and so on, which ensures that we get good messages out there that work. The information that is produced to encourage responsible dog ownership and behaviour in the outdoors takes all sorts of forms—signage, posters, training videos and so on. You should look at that resource. We run various campaigns as part of that, some of which have been incorporated in the Covid-19 campaign work that we have been doing to encourage responsible behaviour in people’s daily exercise—dog messages are in there, too.

Over the years, we have run various campaigns, particularly focusing on lambing. That brings me to the question that was asked about the most common issues. Lambing time is probably the biggest situation that we are asked to help to raise awareness about, and it involves the months in the early part of the year—from January through to even as far as June or July—as well as the period prior to lambing taking place, when pregnant ewes are in the fields and on the hillsides.

That is probably enough from me.

Paula Boyden

As we heard from SPARC, one of the key things to bear in mind is that, in 50 per cent of the incidents that are recorded, no owner is present; the dog is on its own. The National Police Chiefs Council’s four-year survey suggests that that figure is as high as two thirds, and it is even higher in some police forces. We need to look at why those dogs are unaccompanied. As one of the previous witnesses said, we can have good signage, but how do we manage the situation if the owner is not there? What is happening to allow the dogs to roam free? Are they escaping from gardens, or are owners letting them out through the front door? That is a huge area in which we can aim to prevent some of the incidents from happening.

The Convener

I am happy to bring in Steve Jenkinson, briefly.

Steve Jenkinson

I think that everyone else has covered what I was going to say. The key thing is being aware of why such incidents happen and then having the right interventions. Issuing fines is a small but significant part of the story. We want to prevent the incidents happening rather than deal with people after the event.

Colin Smyth

Good morning. Some of the evidence that the committee has received has highlighted the need to better enforce existing measures. In relation to livestock worrying, would increased use of dog control notices be beneficial? Allied to that, are there other methods that need to be better employed to ensure that any legislation that is passed by the Parliament will be effective?

Paula Boyden

I absolutely agree with the question. Dog control notices could be used in such instances, but a couple of things need to happen to enable them to be used. We need to ensure that there is good communication between local authorities and the police, but we also need a means of tracing dogs. If a dog control notice is issued in one local authority area, what happens if the owner or the dog strays out of that area? How do we know that a dog control notice has been imposed on that dog? With some administrative support, dog control notices could be used to much better effect.

Bridget Jones

I will pick up on non-legislative approaches. I want to talk about education and awareness raising, but there are also management measures. We should encourage the use of good, current, relevant and attractive signage to ensure that the public are aware of whatever is ahead of them, whether it is lambs or new livestock in a field or whatever.

It has been mentioned already, but I cannot overemphasise the importance of providing good information. Dog walkers tend to be quite habitual; they use regular routes. The dog-walking circuit can be a daily or twice-daily feature of their activity, so they are quite a good audience to pinpoint and target in order to get messages across.

Dog walkers like to stay away from livestock. They are looking for easy and enjoyable walks, so management measures include ensuring that paths are there or, if lambing is happening in the field, that alternative routes are available. Good information should be provided about that. There should also be good fencing and gate arrangements. Work should be done with the access officers of local authorities and national park authorities, and potentially with the local community. There might be a community path group in the area that might be able to help with funding for new path arrangements and so on.

There are other aspects that can help land managers to manage the issue through support and, potentially, even funding.

Mike Flynn

I go back to what Kirsteen Mackenzie from Perth and Kinross Council said in the previous session. Dog control notices can be very effective but, with no disrespect to anybody who is involved in dealing with them, the services are grossly understaffed and underfunded. Certain local authorities do not have an appointed person but will just put somebody who works in a different department on to issuing dog control notices.

In either Aberdeen or Aberdeenshire, if the police charge somebody with a livestock worrying offence, they will issue a control notice, but that is not a joined-up thing. There is not enough co-ordination, and there are so many crossovers in legislation. If a dog is unattended, it is technically a stray dog, and a stray dog is out of the system in seven days. That is legally binding. There is lots of legislation that could be used, but it is not currently adopted.

Steve Jenkinson

I reaffirm the value of dog control notices. They are really good, particularly given the balance between criminal and civil law. It can be sufficient to take preventative action instead of going down the criminal route, particularly when the incident happened unintentionally.

If we are saying that people do not have the resources to issue dog control notices, which can be done much more quickly and easily because of how they are constructed, we have to ask how criminal sanctions are going to be applied, too. Somebody will need to use resources to investigate and take action, and that time will be spent after incidents have happened, rather than preventatively.

Peter Chapman

Good morning, folks. We have strayed a wee bit into this area already, but we all know that, as far as this crime is concerned, prevention is better than cure. Some of the panel have spoken a wee bit about the need for better signage and information, but what about improved training for dogs and dog owners? What do you think that should look like?

How might a higher level of training be ensured, given that we heard—I think that it was from Steve Jenkinson, but it may not have been; it does not matter—that we have been trying to train owners and dogs better for the past 30 years yet the problem still exists. What can we do better, as far as training dogs and their owners is concerned, to ensure that there are fewer such crimes?

Mike Flynn

It is down to education. As I said, we have been trying that for over 30 years. Before Covid came in, our education officers spoke to over 240,000 children throughout Scotland, and in our livestock section we talk about the dangers of dogs not being under control. Education is always the key thing here.

Some people just do not believe that their dog would do it. Paula Boyden and Steve Jenkinson are right; we should not just focus on German shepherd dogs and huskies, because any dog of a decent size is capable of the behaviour. I remember a lady, many years ago, who had walked her dog around the same fields for eight years and one day it just took off. She actually went to the farmer to report it herself—she was very responsible. She was devastated, but she had had no indication that her dog would do it. One day it just decided to take off. As we heard earlier, the reason might have been that there was something physically wrong with the dog.

Education is key, and we would like to think that, if the bill is passed, it will be implemented along with a nationwide campaign to highlight the potential dangers and the fact that the penalties are now severe and people could lose their dogs. As I said, under the right circumstances, a farmer can currently destroy a dog if the owner cannot control it and it is harrying his sheep.

Steve Jenkinson

People have usefully made the point that the crime is invariably unintentional and education is key. One of the cantons in Switzerland requires people to take a dog ownership test, which is like a driving test, before they can get a dog. When I was studying the psychology of people and their pets at the University of Southampton, one of my colleagues looked at that approach but they found that there was no net benefit. Some people were going to be good dog owners anyway and others were not. The fact that someone had passed the test did not necessarily mean that they would be a good dog owner.

Education is certainly key. I do not want to undermine the value of sheep, but education is particularly important because these things are often symptoms of poor dog welfare and poor dog keeping—they are symptomatic of a wider issue. Through our good citizen training scheme, which operates all across the UK and extensively throughout Scotland, we are developing new outdoor modules. Dog training often happens inside, where there are no sheep and deer, and training outside can be really valuable.

The key thing is that, once we see the signs—for instance, a dog having strayed or there having been an incident—we must deal with it straight away. Dog control notices can do that quite swiftly.

11:00  

Peter Chapman

Does Steve Jenkinson feel that the increased penalties that come with the bill are part of the solution as well? He made the point very strongly that nobody wants these incidents to happen. However, will the fact that penalties have increased get back to general dog owners and make them realise that it is a real crime? It is about education, but also about the penalty that goes with allowing attacks to happen. Do you accept that the penalty needs to be increased as well?

Steve Jenkinson

Penalties certainly need to be there, because people who let these attacks happen often do not look after their dogs in a lot of other ways. However, relying on a penalty is a tad naive. It needs to be part of a suite of measures.

Sentencing guidelines for people who let attacks happen wilfully or recklessly will be really important. We do need penalties, and it would be good to extend the bill’s coverage to all the other animals that have been mentioned, because no animal should suffer a dog attack. However, it would be better if the penalties were more integrated with preventative measures and used as a last resort in the case of people who wilfully repeat the offence.

Paula Boyden

Obviously, education is key. We need to encourage folks to recognise that training their dog is the norm. We come across a lot of dog owners who, because they have had a dog before, feel that they do not need to go to any sort of training classes.

I am here on behalf of Dogs Trust, but I am also a veterinary surgeon and I know that, if I could give people a tablet to make their dog behave, they would willingly give it. However, training takes time and effort, and some people do not have the time or inclination to put the effort in as soon as they can when they get a dog. Therefore, we need to focus on that. We have set up a dog training school to encourage folks to recognise that training is not only for puppy owners but for anybody who has recently got a dog.

You will not be surprised to hear that a number of the dogs that come into our care have underlying behavioural issues. That is because it takes time and effort for people to train the dogs, to address and resolve those issues. I cannot overemphasise the importance of training. However, sitting alongside that—and I appreciate that it is left of field for this forum—we need to look at regulation of the whole world of dog training and behaviour management, to ensure that dogs are appropriately treated and that we are not negatively impacting on their welfare with what we are trying to do in the training process.

Bridget Jones

Others have covered the topic quite well but, yes, training is a component part of improving people’s understanding of what they need to do.

Perhaps more integrated content is the trick to ensuring an understanding of what access rights and responsibilities are, as is a better understanding of land use in Scotland. There is possibly an opportunity for the public to learn a bit more about what goes on in the countryside in relation to land management and use. A wider understanding would be to everybody’s benefit, but, in this case, it would particularly benefit people who have dogs.

Oliver Mundell

Penalties have probably been quite comprehensively covered. What are the panel’s views on requiring compensation for livestock owners?

Paula Boyden

I agree that there should be an element of compensation, as a person’s livelihood is affected. The cost is clearly financial, but it also goes much wider because of the emotional impact on the farmer. It is not just about the financial loss of the sheep; a farmer might have spent years building a pedigree, closed flock and they will not be able to resolve damage to that overnight. There are also all the subsequent losses. There is the immediate loss of the animals that have been killed, and animals that have been seriously injured might need either treatment or euthanasia. There are also subsequent losses, such as abortion in ewes and suchlike, which we need to look at.

I agree that there should be compensation, and it would make sense to look at that when the case comes to court. It goes back to my previous comment about the need to understand the level of suffering that is incurred by those animals, so that we can have a full view of the impact of an incident. The compensation should be proportionate to the situation.

Steve Jenkinson

At the end of the day, this is a people problem, not a dog problem. It is quite reasonable for farmers to be compensated for the problem. However, along with compensation there should be good action to ensure that the incident does not happen again. That is it.

The Convener

Bridget, do you have any views on that?

Bridget Jones

I agree that compensation seems sensible.

Mike Flynn

Compensation is very important, because of all the financial costs, but you can only get compensation from someone who can afford to pay it. We have personal experience of that issue through the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. I would like to see all reasonable costs of the enforcement agency being recouped from the accused person if they are found guilty.

You have heard from the police and the local authorities that they do not have the financial resource. If a person is wilfully allowing it and the dog is left with them, it is likely to happen again. If you seize the dog, the kennelling costs will be about £15 per dog per day, and it can take up to a year for the case to get to court. Local authorities and the police simply cannot afford that.

The Convener

Should there be limits to compensation? Stewart Stevenson suggested that tups could be—and I can say that they are—worth in excess of £300,000. A breeding ewe could be worth £7,000 or £8,000. It is unlikely that farmers will have them individually insured, because insurance runs probably at 20 per cent of the value of the animal, which makes it prohibitive. Should there be a limit on how much compensation farmers should get, or should it be mandatory for dog owners to have insurance to cover the costs of potential damage by their animals? I am interested in your views on that, Mike.

Mike Flynn

It goes back to my previous answer. You can set any limit you want, but if the person does not have the means to pay it, it is not going to be paid. To be fair, neither the owner nor the dog knows whether it is attacking a £30,000 tup or something that Alan Dron could buy for £70. As far as I am concerned, if a person’s neglect has caused the incident and they can afford to pay the farmer the full value, that should happen.

The Convener

Thank you. I have a further question. If an inspecting body is to be appointed to assist in the investigation of livestock worrying cases, which body would be the most appropriate and what additional training would they need? We will start off with Bridget Jones.

Bridget Jones

I am going to duck that question. I will leave it to others.

The Convener

Okay—that is a shoulder shrug. Mike, I will go back to you first and then widen it out, if necessary.

Mike Flynn

As I hope the panel will know, all our inspectors are authorised to enforce the welfare provisions of the 2006 act. We have the exact same authority as the police, except that we cannot make an arrest or stop a vehicle. We made it plain in our submission that we do not want to be the primary enforcer of the offence, but I can assure the committee that we have never refused a request from the police to assist them. They are the primary reporters of these matters to the Crown Office, and we will continue to assist the police in any way we can, as well as the local authorities, should they become involved.

The Convener

I do not see anyone else wanting to come in. I have got myself confused, for which I apologise to Mr Stevenson. I should have taken him before I asked my question. I come to him now.

Stewart Stevenson

Thank you, convener. Your apology is fully accepted—but not necessary, I hasten to add.

We have been talking about dog control notices, but I now want to talk about human control notices. Steve Jenkinson said that this is a people problem, not a dog problem, and that is easy to agree with. Are the order-making powers to disqualify owners from owning dogs appropriate and proportionate? If not, how could they be improved? That is the first of my questions.

I draw the witnesses’ attention to the observation, made by the previous panel of witnesses, that enforcement in rural areas is extremely difficult. I did not find myself fundamentally disagreeing with that. There are only three local authority officers in the whole of Perthshire, for example. That is an awful lot of ground to cover and not many people.

Paula Boyden

There is scope for banning an owner from keeping a dog, but the action must be proportionate. It would be disproportionate to apply a ban to, for example, a first-time offender whose dog had literally escaped because of an error. However, if there are repeat offenders who clearly do not see the gravity of what has happened, that option should be available.

We face those challenges already. Mike Flynn will know more about this than I do, but members of the public are banned from keeping animals under the 2006 act, which has a similar process. It will always be a challenge to enforce a ban.

I understand from some of my RSPCA colleagues with whom I work that people quite often report individuals. Therefore, to a degree, we have to rely on that good will. I do not underestimate the challenges, but the important aspect is that the action must be proportionate.

I appreciate that this example again refers to south of the border. The National Police Chiefs Council survey, which covers a period of four years, shows that 11 per cent of the dogs involved were repeat offenders. Therefore, we are talking about a minority. However, we should at least have the ability to use that power against someone who is completely indiscriminate in allowing their dog to roam.

Steve Jenkinson

To follow on from Paula Boyden’s comments, we need the measures to be proportionate. However, we also must ensure that we are dealing with the issue. In the earlier session, it was said, “If you go to the house and the dog is in the house, you know who the owner is.” You do not—you do not know who the keeper is.

We see this in other dangerous dogs legislation—the issue of who owns a dog and who you take the action against is quite a difficult one. If you ban one person, the dog could be transferred to someone else in the same household, and the issues that relate to why the dog escaped in the first place would be left unresolved. Alternatively, they may just dispose of the dog to an even less suitable home.

If there is an issue in which sheep worrying is symptomatic of poor welfare of a dog, it is in the dog’s interests for it to be removed. However, if we are talking about a gate being left open, a child having done something, or whatever it may be, and the owner has behaved reasonably in all respects—life catches up with us in some cases—that would be inappropriate.

A key issue is making sure that the sentencing guidelines ensure that the powers are used proportionately. To return to the point that I made at the start of the session, when I was asked by the police what I wanted to happen after the incident, I said that we need to focus on what the best thing is to do to prevent it from happening again. That will not necessarily be dealt with if a dog goes to live somewhere else—that could make it worse.

The Convener

Mike Flynn has spoken strongly on the issue. Do you want to add anything, Mike?

Mike Flynn

Yes. Luckily, under the current system, it does not matter what the legislation says; it is ultimately up to the sheriff who is dealing with the case to decide on its individual merits.

If we are talking about a first-time offender who is totally innocent—if it was a pure accident—that is one thing; but if we are talking about a repeat offender or someone who is reckless and pays no regard to what has happened, a ban should come in. That ban should not just be a ban on ownership; it should also be a ban on keeping or being in control of a dog. If a person says that the dog belongs to their wife but they are caught in control of it in the open air, they are breaking that ban. The ban must encompass everything.

The Convener

Do you want to come back on that, Stewart?

Stewart Stevenson

I want to move on to the next of my questions, but I see that someone else wants to come in.

The Convener

Peter Chapman has a related question, so I will bring him in and come back to you.

11:15  

Peter Chapman

What does the panel think about the question of when—if ever—a dog should be destroyed? We know that a dog that has attacked livestock is likely to do it again, if it gets the opportunity, as it has got the taste for blood.

We have heard that, in the case of repeat offenders, the dog could or should be seized. However, what happens to that dog at that stage? If that dog has been seized because it has repeatedly attacked livestock, what should happen to that dog at that point? Should it be destroyed?

The Convener

Mike, I will ask you to reply first, and then come to the others.

Mike Flynn

Again, it would be decided on an individual basis. We get dogs—dangerous dogs or whatever—in various circumstances. Each dog is assessed by our staff of veterinary surgeons and animal behaviourists. As I said earlier, most of the attacks are entirely preventable, so if it is decided that simply keeping the dog under proper control would prevent the attacks, that could happen. Destroying the dog would not be automatic.

Steve Jenkinson

I totally agree. It comes back to the point that Paula Boyden made about the fact that any dog can be involved in sheep worrying. The fact that a dog has not done it before does not mean that it will not do it. A dog just playing in a field of in-lamb ewes and not causing any damage to them can cause those animals to abort. The owner might say that it was only playing, and that might be true, but the consequences can be severe.

Giving a death sentence to a dog that has attacked livestock once is inappropriate and excessive. As Mike Flynn said, we are talking about a preventable crime and we need to look at the wider issues. Certainly, if the sheep worrying is caused because the dog is in an untreatable home and its welfare is compromised in other ways, I would prefer that dog to be taken away from that home. As was said earlier, this is a people problem, not a dog problem. A dog that has attacked livestock could have a full and happy life in another home, where it could help people to take part in the healthy exercise of dog walking in a different context.

Paula Boyden

I agree with Steve Jenkinson. A dog that has attacked livestock could easily thrive in a different environment. However, if a dog is moved to another home, it should also receive appropriate rehabilitation and training. I am not saying that it should live in a rural environment where it might do it again; I am talking about an element of rehabilitation and training so that the new owner can at least spot the signs of the dog being alerted to other animals.

I think that euthanising a dog on the basis of an incident, without going through a process first, would be incredibly heavy handed.

Stewart Stevenson

I suspect that the answer to my question has been developed in some of the previous answers, but I am specifically interested in the powers to exclude offending owners from walking dogs on agricultural land. What are your thoughts on that? In particular, how do people know what is agricultural land? For example, our three acres of rough hill grazing is occupied by animals for only a third of the year. For two thirds of the year, it just looks like an empty grass field. Indeed, only a few hundred metres away, there is land that is a site of special scientific interest and is not agricultural land, but that difference may not be obvious to the casual observer.

How useful do you think the power is? Are there circumstances in which it could be helpful or where it might be challenging? I accept that I might have attempted to answer that latter question myself.

The Convener

I suspect that you might have done, Stewart, but let us see if Bridget Jones has an answer.

Bridget Jones

I think that you have answered the question—indeed, I think that the previous panel answered it, too.

The issue of enforceability is an important aspect, as is the issue of the public’s understanding of agricultural land. My previous point about land use in Scotland fits with that. It is a tricky issue for the public to understand.

Mike Flynn

As Steve Jenkinson said, a lot of responsible farmers put up signs saying “Livestock”. However, if you have walked past that sign for eight months and never seen any livestock, it kind of loses its impact.

Signage should be targeted at times when there is livestock present. Everyone has to access somewhere at some time, so, if there was a reasonable place to put that sign, you could reasonably expect people to know that there were livestock present.

Steve Jenkinson

This is a key point. The 1953 act that the bill refers to defines agricultural land as, amongst other things,

“any land used for grazing”.

That makes me think of the Highlands and Islands, where North Ronaldsay sheep graze on the beach. Basically, that definition means that agricultural land could be anywhere because, even in arable areas, crop rotation in fields means that there is some grazing on them. I just do not think that that approach would be helpful. I agree with the view that it would be far better for there to be targeted signs so that we can help people do the right thing. If a dog is not properly exercised, there will be other problems with it. That section of the bill should be scrutinised and, in my view, removed.

The Convener

I think that we have got a flavour of people’s feelings on the issue.

Maureen Watt

I would like to explore the issue of definitions a bit more closely. It is probably important to say that the bill involves consolidation and updating of existing legislation rather than being new legislation. Among respondents, there was near universal support for the expansion of the definition of livestock and types of land. However, there is confusion about some of the definitions. For example, in its submission, the Law Society of Scotland said that there is no definition of field—I am surprised at that. It says:

“Under section 1(2) (c) of the 1953 Act, the offence refers to worrying livestock as meaning: ‘being at large (that is to say not on a lead or otherwise under close control) in a field or enclosure in which there are sheep.’ We wonder if it would be better to define what a field is as common grazing may be a significant area which may or may not be enclosed. The Scottish Outdoor Access Code ... Refers to being ‘under close control’. Would this be better than reference to a lead? The Code should be consistent with the legislation for purposes of clarity and transparency.”

I should note, as an aside, that I understand that “common grazing” has another meaning under crofting legislation. What are your views of the extension of the definitions in the 1953 act, and are there areas where you feel that they should be clarified?

The Convener

I guess that, if all the witnesses were in the room, they would all look away so that somebody else would answer first. However, they do not have the ability to do that. As the question concerns outdoor access, Bridget Jones is in the firing line first.

Bridget Jones

That is okay. On the Scottish outdoor access code, I will go back to basics, briefly. The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 contains a right of responsible access to most land in Scotland. It explicitly says that anybody with a dog that is not under control falls outwith access rights. If your dog is not under control, access rights do not apply. The Scottish outdoor access code gives further advice and guidance on what responsible control would be. The issue is a little bit complicated but, to try to simplify it, if there is a field with young animals in it—lambs, calves, bulls—you do not take your dog into that field; that is responsible behaviour.

If there is a field with animals in it, but not young, you can take your dog into it, but it must be on a lead or under close control. To clarify, under close control generally means close at heel. That is a little bit easier for the public to understand. The dog should be at your heel. That is why we have the split between when your dog is on a lead and when your dog can be off the lead but under close control. When you get to the wider countryside, your dog needs to be under close control and you need to stay away from animals if you can.

I hope that that clarifies the position in the context of the Scottish outdoor access code.

Steve Jenkinson

As has been said, this is a nightmare. The key issue is the impact on the farmer or the suffering of the animal. It does not matter whether it is an enclosed field or inbye land or common grazings. I encourage the committee to look at deed rather than location, because it is a nightmare.

The bill should say that dogs should not attack animals or livestock anywhere. That gives far greater focus. There are situations such as cattle in Pollok park, and the Kennel Club has its own 7,500 acres of land where we have Galloway cattle and sheep. Are you saying that, in a big area like that, just because there might be sheep miles and miles away, you would not know? The onus should be on the owner to inform themselves with good information and not just allow their dogs to attack or worry livestock. Introducing definitions of location, apart from when livestock have strayed into somebody's garden, which is already dealt with under the legislation, and getting tied up in land is difficult for the reasons that the various bodies have said. It is just not acceptable for dogs to injure or attack livestock anywhere. This is a side issue and we should be careful not to fall into a trap here.

The Convener

Paula Boyden, do you want to come in here?

Paula Boyden

I have no comment to make on that; it is not my area of expertise. I agree with Kirsteen Mackenzie.

The Convener

In fairness, as everyone else has had a chance, Mike Flynn, do you want to say anything on that?

Mike Flynn

My only comment on that is that your idea of “close control” of your dog and my idea would be totally different. If it is on a lead, it is under control.

The Convener

I think that many owners might feel that they have their dog under control without using a lead.

Maureen Watt, is that all right for you?

Maureen Watt

That is fine, although I think that we will have our work cut out on this bit.

Christine Grahame

I was listening carefully to what Bridget Jones said about the access code. If the bill becomes law, will it be sufficient to put information into the access code to the effect that people are still allowed access but it is subject to them making sure that their animal does not worry sheep or other livestock? Is that sufficient, or does the access code need to be changed?

Bridget Jones

That would be sufficient. The code and the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 are clear. As somebody said earlier, the important thing is that, if the legislation goes through, we have a public awareness-raising campaign and get the message out nice and clear for the public to understand.

Christine Grahame

That brings me neatly to my supplementary. I am the member who introduced the bill that became the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 and, at that time, there was no duty on the Scottish Government to publicise members’ bills. That might be changing. Do you take the view that I take, which is that there is no point in the bill proceeding unless the public is aware of it, and unless it is tied up with the access code? A member does not have the money to publicise their bill, but the Government has, and to me, all legislation is equal.

I would like to hear the witnesses’ comments on publicity and the need not for one hit of publicity when the bill becomes law but for continuing public awareness raising.

Bridget Jones

Generally a rolling programme of education and awareness raising goes on, and it fluctuates each year depending on what the priority topics are at the time. There can be seasonal stuff at lambing time, for example.

In short, the answer is yes. We are fully aware that there are various issues that come along with access to the outdoors and dog walking. Recent research shows that not far shy of 50 per cent of people who access the outdoors to enjoy the countryside for health and wellbeing benefits are accompanied by a dog. Dogs are a primary motivator for getting people outdoors. We want to ensure that people are out there and are enjoying themselves responsibly.

11:30  

We work in conjunction with the national access forum, SPARC and land management and recreational non-governmental organisations to ensure that we have a good joined-up campaign so that the public know what they are and are not allowed to do and how to behave responsibly. If the bill goes through, with increases in fines and so on, we can incorporate that message in there, if it is appropriate to the audience we are targeting.

Christine Grahame

I want to give the witnesses the opportunity to put at the door of the Scottish Government a continuing duty to publicise the bill if it is passed. That has not happened with my member’s bill on the control of dogs or with other members’ bills, so I would like a little push for that. If the Government publicised such legislation, as it does its legislation, that would make it worth while for members to introduce bills.

Mike Flynn

I totally agree with Christine Grahame. Millions of people in Scotland, or at least hundreds of thousands, do not even know that her legislation on the control of dogs exists, and local authorities are not enforcing it correctly. People have to be made aware. As we said right at the beginning, such legislation has to be accompanied by a public campaign. That does not mean just having one advert in a newspaper on 1 April; it has to be continual.

Steve Jenkinson

I absolutely agree. There is no point in legislation if people do not know about it. The 2003 act, which underpins the access code, already says that access rights do not apply if a dog is not kept under proper control. That is very context specific and clear, and I do not think that anybody would argue that a dog that was worrying or attacking livestock was under proper control.

It is a key issue for us because, at the end of the day, deficiencies in this regard are often an animal welfare issue for the dog as well as for the livestock. I know that the people at Scottish Natural Heritage, which is now NatureScot, are working hard but, historically, there was a series of events to share good practice, which helped land managers and other access managers. The events were on all sorts of things, but we did a number of events on dogs. We are mindful that it seems that the resources are not there at the moment, yet given that the responsibilities on people taking access, land managers and the statutory agencies are a fundamental part of the access code, it seems unfair on dog owners and land managers if those agencies are not playing their part in educating. As we said at the start, this is an unintentional crime, and you deal with something unintentional by making sure that people are better informed. It is a brilliant question.

Paula Boyden

I agree with the previous comments. If the bill proceeds, there will be significant sanctions and penalties for the owners of dogs. That in itself could start to be the beginnings of a preventive tool. If folks realise that they will not just get away scot free or with a metaphorical slap on the wrist, that could be powerful. We will absolutely need to highlight and promote the fact that the legislation is there and that it can and will be used.

The Convener

I ask Emma Harper, whose bill it is, to ask any questions that she has.

Emma Harper

To pick up on what Paula Boyden just said, the purpose of updating 67-year-old legislation is to convey the importance of the offence. I remind everybody that the bill is not new legislation; it will update old legislation.

Do we need to focus on compensation law that already exists? Rather than create a whole new set of compensation language, should the bill refer to existing compensation law?

I am also interested in whether panel members think that the number of recorded incidents would go up. The bill might bring a bit more gravitas, which might give farmers confidence that, when they reported offences, something would be done about them.

The Convener

I will give every panel member a chance to answer those questions.

Mike Flynn

I agree with Emma Harper. I reckon that, if the legislation were to be passed, more farmers would be encouraged to report incidents, thinking that that would be worth while if it would help to solve the problem.

As for compensation, I can only speak about the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, which contains measures for the Scottish SPCA to be compensated for its costs. However, if those are not paid willingly, we have to take civil action to recover them, which can take months to go through the courts and can be costly. At the end of the process, we often find that the person does not have the money to pay the costs anyway.

Steve Jenkinson

Although compensation provisions exist, they are not working. In my other role as a member of NFU Scotland, I am aware of a report of an incident on a farm in Kirknewton, in which the loss was £20,000. The dogs involved had come not with walkers but from an adjacent holding. Their owners received a £400 fine, but no compensation was awarded to the farmer. NFU Scotland has since asked the procurator fiscal and the Crown Office to increase the penalty.

That example illustrates that, although the power to award compensation is there in theory, it is not being used. We should take the opportunity to deal with that if we can. Although I will always come back to the issue of prevention, it is absolutely right that people should be properly compensated for what happens, but there are concerns about that.

Paula Boyden

As I mentioned earlier, the important point is that we need a good baseline for reporting. We suggest that that aspect is considered immediately, to ensure that there are good, robust reporting and recording mechanisms at the police level, so that we get consistent information. It is also important that we actively encourage farmers to report now rather than wait to see whether the bill is passed. That will give us a baseline so that we will know in future how effective the bill has been.

If there is already legislation on compensation, it would make sense to refer to that. However, it would be sensible to deal with the compensation aspect at the time of the case going to court, so that it is dealt with in one sitting rather than later on. The court would have the benefit of hearing the extent of the loss, including the level of suffering that was experienced by the sheep or other livestock involved. It would then have a full picture of the impact of the incident.

Bridget Jones

I echo Paula Boyden’s point about improving the quality of the information that we get when incidents are reported. That would help to target matters in our awareness-raising campaigns and other activity. Having a better idea of what was happening and where, and in what circumstances, would make that aspect of our job a bit easier.

The Convener

Emma, does that answer your questions?

Emma Harper

Yes. Thanks, convener. I have found the evidence session very helpful. It feels weird to sit on this side of the table, as the proposer of a bill. I thank the committee’s members and the witnesses for their input, which has been most helpful.

The Convener

Just before we close, I would like to ask a question that has sprung to my mind. Some people have mentioned the question of what might be considered appropriate signage. For example, if someone goes into the hills in Scotland, they might see no sheep for miles, but equally they might round a knoll and suddenly come across sheep that they did not know were there. However, it might not be appropriate to have signage in such a place. Do we not think that farmers should not have to rely on signage? They should rely on people knowing what is appropriate to do with their dog.

Mike Flynn

I agree with what you are saying. They should not have to rely on signage, but it is an extra safeguard for farmers. If you have moved livestock in an area and there is a suitable access point where you can warn people, that would be an added benefit. However, you are quite right. As the law stands, dogs should be under control.

Steve Jenkinson

You are absolutely right. There is an issue of context and the difference between, for example, a 3 or 4-acre field on the edge of Livingston and a big open grazing in the Highlands. A good comparison is that, when you are driving a car, you have the responsibility for how you drive—you are responsible for adjusting your speed, for example—but we still put up signs when there is a bend or a ford coming up to give drivers that little bit more information to make an informed decision. That is the point of signage.

If signage is everywhere, it loses value, but if it is put up somewhere where an incident has happened, perhaps unintentionally, that can help to keep it clear. If someone is entering an open grazing, signage can say, at the point of entry, “You may not see a sheep here now, but sheep are grazed here, so keep a lookout.”

Paula Boyden

It is clear that there is no one magic wand that will solve the issue. Signage is just one of the tools in the box that we can utilise. As has been mentioned, using signage at the appropriate time of year—so that people do not become conditioned to it, particularly if they walk the same route—to say that animals are present is just an extra warning. It is not a panacea, but it can be useful in the right context.

Bridget Jones

Signs are one of the tools in the box. If used well, signs can be quite effective, particularly in situations where there has been a change in circumstances. If the lambs are in a field, put a sign up, but do not leave it up all year, as people will just ignore it.

Signs should be viewed as part of a communications plan-type approach. There are all sorts of ways of getting messages across. Obviously, there are digital platforms and social media options available, but we should not forget the traditional method of talking to people face to face. Things such as that little article in the local newsletter or a visit to the community council to spread the word about issues in the area are all good ways of getting messages across. A combined approach is the trick.

The Convener

Thanks very much. That brings us to the end of our questions this morning. I thank panel members for the evidence that they have given, which has been extremely helpful.

11:43 Meeting continued in private until 11:43.  

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Linda Fabiani)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S5M-23916, in the name of Emma Harper, on the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill at stage 1.

I advise members that we have no spare time at all in the debate.

16:16  

Emma Harper (South Scotland) (SNP)

I am pleased to open today’s debate on the general principles of the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. The bill will update and strengthen the law around livestock worrying, which is a horrendous event in which sheep and other farm animals are chased, attacked or killed by out-of-control dogs.

In many cases, sheep and other livestock are mauled to death or left with horrendous injuries and in extreme distress, often meaning that they must be euthanised. Being chased can also traumatise animals, leading pregnant ewes to abort. In addition to the emotional impact that the attacks have on the farmers and their families, there are often substantial financial losses. In some cases, pedigree sheep worth many thousands of guineas can be killed.

In evidence to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, the Scottish partnership against rural crime reported that between April 2018 and March 2019,

“321 attacks on livestock were reported to Police Scotland”—[Official Report, Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, 16 September 2020; c 2.]

and we know that attacks on livestock are underreported. The welfare of all animals is important and the evidence suggests that livestock attacks are a growing problem, which warrants legislative change.

The current livestock worrying legislation, which dates back to 1953, is outdated and no longer fit for purpose. Witnesses at the REC Committee agreed that current deterrents, as set out in the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, are insufficient and need to be updated. The bill provides additional powers for the investigation and enforcement of the offence of livestock worrying, and will increase the maximum penalties that are available to the courts.

The bill also extends the definition of “livestock” to include additional types of farmed animals, such as alpacas, llamas, deer and buffalo, which are not afforded legal protection under the 1953 act.

It is clear from my consultation, which received more than 600 full responses, that the term “livestock worrying” does not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence. The bill renames the offence from “worrying” livestock to “attacking or worrying” livestock. The word “worrying” has a different meaning today from its meaning in 1953; the word “attacking” is much more definitive and clearer.

I would like to thank everyone who has helped me get to this stage—the Scottish partnership against rural crime; NFU Scotland; the National Sheep Association; the Scottish SPCA; the British Veterinary Association; the British Horse Society Scotland; NatureScot; Scottish Land & Estates; the Dogs Trust; the farmers I met face to face; my vet, Alan Marshall; and the non-Government bills unit. Huge thanks go to my office manager, Scott McElvanney.

I also thank the REC Committee for its consideration of my bill at stage 1 and for supporting the general principles of the bill. I have written formally to the committee in response to its report and recommendations and, as the committee suggested, last week I met the minister to discuss the bill.

Following the positive meeting with the minister and the publication of the committee’s report, I have committed to propose amendments to the bill at stage 2. The committee suggested that penalties could be increased to match recent changes to animal welfare offences. Having discussed that with the minister, I have agreed to the Government lodging a stage 2 amendment to increase the maximum penalty to 12 months’ imprisonment or a fine of £40,000, or both.

The committee called for the powers in relation to the appointment of inspectors by inspecting bodies to be removed from the bill, due to concerns about the range of powers that would be available to those inspectors. I confirm that I will lodge stage 2 amendments to omit the relevant section from the bill to ensure that only the police can carry out any livestock attack investigations.

Additionally, the committee raised concerns about the power that would allow the police to enter non-domestic premises without a warrant in order to seize a dog. I will lodge an amendment at stage 2 to ensure that a warrant is required in all cases.

Finally, on a technical legislative point, the committee recommended that the procedure in relation to regulations regarding the definition of the term “livestock” should be affirmative and not negative. I will lodge a stage 2 amendment to that effect.

One point that I would like to clarify relates to compensation. The committee’s report suggests that the bill contains compensation measures. That is not the case—there are no compensation orders in the bill. Compensation is already available as an option to the courts and, as the committee heard, compensation has been awarded in some cases.

I am hopeful that, with my commitment to lodge amendments at stage 2, the Parliament will support the general principles of the bill today at stage 1. That is the right thing to do to ensure that Scotland’s hard-working farmers and crofters and those involved in agriculture have greater legal protection from attacks on their livestock by out-of-control dogs, which can be financially and emotionally devastating. I am committed to working with any member who has concerns or suggestions on how to improve the bill as we approach stage 2. I urge members to support the bill at decision time this evening.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Edward Mountain to speak on behalf of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee.

16:22  

Edward Mountain (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

Before I begin, I would like to make a declaration of interests, in that I am a member of a family farming partnership.

As convener of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, I am pleased to speak in this stage 1 debate. I thank all those who submitted their views, which informed our stage 1 report. It was those views that led us to support the bill’s key aims. However, it was clear to us that considerably more clarity and amendment would be needed to make the bill effective.

Due to time constraints, I can touch on only a few of the issues. Considerable work has been put into the bill not only by the member in charge but by the committee. I therefore have to say that I find it totally unacceptable that such a short amount of time has been allocated for the debate. If the Parliament and its committees are to provide effective scrutiny of proposed legislation, sufficient time to do so must be found, and it is clear to me that an hour is insufficient.

I thank the member in charge and the Scottish Government for their responses to our report. Certain elements of the response from the member in charge did not appear to fully grasp the reasoning behind some of the committee’s decisions. However, I welcome the clarity that the Scottish Government’s more detailed response brought.

We consider the increased penalties for the offence of livestock worrying to be justified, but we raised a question about whether they should be higher or in line with penalties in other legislation. I am pleased to note that the Scottish Government will resolve that by lodging an amendment to increase the maximum penalty available so that it is consistent with other legislation.

The committee found that certain elements of disqualification orders in the bill were unclear. To give one example, witnesses questioned how an order disqualifying a person from bringing a dog on to agricultural land would be enforced or monitored. The Scottish Government response agrees that the issue presents a challenge and accepts that further discussion is required.

The committee voiced deep concerns about the appropriateness of involving inspecting bodies in cases of livestock worrying. We therefore recommended that the provisions on that be removed. Again, I am pleased that the Scottish Government and the member in charge—today—have confirmed that they will make the required amendment.

Questions were also raised on practicalities to do with the role of vets in examining dogs, including how the integrity and continuity of evidence will be managed and the costs that will be involved. We asked for information and guidance to be provided, and the Scottish Government has indicated that that will be forthcoming, and that the police are expected to bear the costs.

I turn to the power of entry, search and seizure without a warrant, on which the committee had serious concerns, to the extent that we questioned whether the provisions were legally competent. We were not persuaded that the power was required or appropriate. Therefore, I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government agrees that the provisions should be removed from the bill, and I note that the member in charge has undertaken to do that.

Although the committee supported the general principles of the bill in our report, we did so only in very broad terms, and we provided some strongly worded caveats on the detail of its provisions. If the bill is to deliver Emma Harper’s objectives and to be effective legislation, the important issues that the committee highlighted in its stage 1 report must be resolved in later amending stages.

I look forward to hearing other members’ views on the bill and—if the Parliament agrees that it should progress to stage 2—to the issues that have been identified in the committee’s report being the subject of the considerable amendments that have been discussed.

16:26  

The Minister for Rural Affairs and the Natural Environment (Ben Macpherson)

I am pleased to have an opportunity to contribute to the debate, and I commend Emma Harper for her commitment and excellent work in bringing the bill to Parliament. I express my thanks, and those of my predecessor, to her for her constructive and collaborative attitude in working to deliver something simple and effective to modernise and improve the legislation on livestock worrying. I also thank the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee for its detailed scrutiny of the bill proposals and its stage 1 report on the bill. As has been mentioned, I have already written to the committee to set out the Scottish Government’s response to that report. I want to highlight key aspects of our position.

As has been said, the bill, as introduced, increases the maximum penalties for, and provides additional powers to investigate and enforce, the offence of attacking and worrying livestock. It proposes a minor but important change to the definition of “worrying livestock” and gives the attack element more prominence, although the scope of the offence remains the same. It also amends the list of animal species to which the offence relates to take account of the species that are commonly farmed in 2021.

I think that those changes are a useful modernisation of the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 and, in support of those principles, I agree with the intention to allow for future amendments to the definition of livestock as farming practices evolve.

The main focus of the bill is to increase the maximum penalties that are available for the offence of livestock worrying, which is a worthwhile aim. However, as Emma Harper indicated, to ensure consistency with the new penalties that are now available for many animal welfare and wildlife crime offences, which the convener of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee mentioned, and to allow the courts to impose appropriate penalties, depending on the particular facts and circumstances of the case, it is my intention to lodge an amendment at stage 2 that will increase the maximum available penalties on imprisonment from six months to 12 months and/or a £40,000 fine.

The vast majority of people in Scotland treat livestock with respect and care, but the small minority who do not must be held accountable through consequences that appropriately reflect the severity of their crime. Increasing the maximum penalties that are available will allow the courts to impose appropriate sentences, once they have considered the facts and circumstances of each case.

Furthermore, I agree that there is merit in the bill’s proposal on disqualification orders, which seeks to give the convicting court the power to prevent people who are convicted of the offence to be disqualified from owning or keeping a dog for such a period as the court thinks fit.

Such orders may be an effective way of dealing with certain offenders, particularly in cases where there appears to be a high probability of reoffending. However, it should be acknowledged that the enforcement and monitoring of such orders might be challenging, and we would not expect them to be appropriate in every case.

Overall, the bill is largely sound across its measures. However, there is scope potentially to simplify and improve some key aspects, which have already been mentioned. The Scottish Government would recommend that elements of the bill regarding inspection bodies and powers of entry be removed, as they are not considered to be necessary or appropriate, given that the relevant authorities already have powers in that regard. I have relayed that to Emma Harper, who is the bill’s sponsor, and I understand from our conversations and the remarks that she made earlier that she has consulted and engaged with the authorities and those with practical experience, who share that view.

The bill includes a power to appoint inspecting bodies other than Police Scotland, but the evidence that was presented to the committee raised many questions about the role of the proposed inspectors and their working relationship with the police. The committee had fundamental concerns about the principle of inspection bodies taking the lead in circumstances in which a criminal offence has taken place.

Scottish ministers agree that responsibility for investigating the criminal offence of livestock worrying should remain with the police, with assistance from local authorities or the Scottish SPCA, as appropriate in the circumstances. The committee, Emma Harper and I, on behalf of the Scottish Government, agree that, should the Parliament agree to the general principles of the bill at stage 1, amendments will need to be lodged at stage 2 to remove the sections that relate to inspecting bodies.

Scottish ministers, in consultation with enforcement organisations including Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, have concluded that the proposed power of entry, search and seizure without a warrant relating to non-domestic premises seems unlikely to be required or used in practice if the police remain the investigating authority. Other speakers have mentioned that. I therefore propose that that power, too, be removed by a stage 2 amendment.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Will you come to a close, please?

Ben Macpherson

Of course, Presiding Officer.

I hope that the Parliament will welcome those changes as I believe that they will strengthen and improve the bill and they have been agreed in principle with Emma Harper.

The Scottish Government supports the general principles of the bill, and I look forward to the remainder of today’s debate.

16:32  

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

I remind members about my entry in the register of members’ interests as a partner in a farming business. I am also a member of NFU Scotland.

I congratulate Emma Harper on bringing the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill to the chamber. I share her interest in the subject. We both represent predominantly rural regions and we know all too well that livestock worrying remains a constant problem that is faced by farmers and the wider agriculture sector.

Dogs are mentioned in the title of the bill, but the real problem is inadequate and often reckless supervision by owners who allow such situations to occur. For far too long, there has been a strong belief among the rural sector that little has been done to safeguard its livestock. The member’s bill consultation identified not only the scale of the problem, with dozens of offences being reported each year, but its increasing prevalence. We also know from NFU surveys that a great many offences go unreported.

When attacks occur, the financial costs can be considerable, but it is just as important that we reflect on the serious detrimental impact on the welfare of the animals that are involved. I suspect that many people do not realise just how easy it is for dog worrying incidents to result in harm to sheep and other animals, or how much damage an uncontrolled dog can cause.

The Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s stage 1 report, which was developed before I became a member of the committee, is a detailed piece of work that makes a measured and reasoned case for the bill’s future. I share the concerns that it expresses about some of the proposals in the bill and agree with the questions that it raises about a range of the bill’s provisions. Much of the evidence that the committee took pointed to changes that might be positive. There are a number of those, but I do not believe that that needs to be fatal for the bill.

Perhaps the most pressing issue is the proposed powers of entry, search and seizure. The committee has chosen not to support those, and there appear to be some deep-seated problems with them, which have been highlighted by the COPFS and the police. I am not sure that the proposed powers are really needed by those who enforce the law on the ground.

The report also addresses some thorny issues on which balance is essential and proper interaction with existing law would be beneficial. Making higher penalties available for livestock worrying offences is an overdue step that has broad support, but I hope that Emma Harper will take note of the committee’s recommendations and look to find consensus with the Scottish Government to ensure that the bill is consistent with existing animal welfare legislation.

Compensation is another issue that has come up and was considered by the committee. There are undoubtedly barriers to seeking compensation through the courts, but we should keep in mind that the courts are there to make decisions on what is appropriate and to adapt to individual situations. If alternative compensation approaches are to be proposed, they must deliver real and tangible benefits to the injured party. Clarity is required on disqualification orders, and I hope that that can be provided as the bill progresses.

Of course, there are areas beyond the scope of the legislation that will impact on its effectiveness in achieving the positive aims that Emma Harper sets out. The discussion around inspecting bodies and the police highlights an obvious point: rural crime cannot be combated effectively if the required resources are not there. Public awareness will be key. I commend Police Scotland for its approach and work with the rural community, and its campaigns on livestock worrying that it has run at important points in the farming calendar, most notably lambing season. More will be necessary if the legislation is to be successful.

Members’ bills are useful tools to correct particular wrongs, and this one focuses on what has been a long-standing problem for rural communities across Scotland. It is for the Parliament to take up the challenge and create a bill that will work effectively. I appreciate that time will be limited as we come to the end of this session, but the bill’s progress will be closely watched by many in Scotland’s countryside. As others have highlighted, there are undoubtedly areas on which we should all reflect and offer suggestions and proposals.

The bill will have our support today.

16:37  

Colin Smyth (South Scotland) (Lab)

Labour will support the general principles of the bill. I thank Emma Harper for introducing it.

Livestock worrying is a problem that should concern not only farmers and crofters, but anyone who has an interest in animal welfare. When collecting evidence on the bill, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee heard from Fiona Lovatt from Flock Health Ltd, who said that its research has estimated that the number of livestock attacks might be as high as 10,000 per year. Charlie Adam of the NFUS noted a recent members survey that showed that 72 per cent of its members had been affected by attacks on their livestock.

Although the precise costs that are associated with livestock worrying incidents are hard to identify due to a lack of consistent data, the Scottish Government has indicated that incidents cost an average of £700. Livestock worrying is first and foremost a threat to the welfare of farmed animals, but it is also expensive and stressful for our farmers and crofters.

What is perhaps most concerning is that many stakeholders expressed to the committee the view that livestock worrying is on the rise. It is clear that the issue needs to be addressed, which includes the need to update legislation—although that is by no means a panacea.

Although Labour will be voting to support the general principles of the bill for those reasons, the bill requires substantial changes to make it fit for purpose. My major concerns with the bill lie, as do those of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee and the minister, with the enforcement provisions—specifically, those relating to inspecting bodies and the proposed powers of entry, search and seizure without a warrant.

As it stands, the bill would give ministers the power to appoint inspecting bodies to carry out investigations. I absolutely recognise the need for more specialism when it comes to investigating animal welfare and wildlife crimes; indeed, I raised that point during the passage of the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Bill. However, I am not convinced that the provisions in this bill are the way to achieve that. As many stakeholders pointed out to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, there is a significant lack of clarity about what exactly is being proposed, and about how, or even whether, the powers would be used.

There is widespread agreement that Police Scotland remains the most appropriate body to lead on livestock worrying investigations. Based on that evidence, I am not convinced that the enabling powers in the bill are useful. Similarly, I have serious reservations about the need for the bill’s provisions allowing entry, search and seizure without a warrant under certain circumstances. I welcome Emma Harper’s commitment to amend those provisions.

Evidence that the committee received called into question what purpose the powers would serve in practice. I am uncomfortable about the prospect of introducing the new powers without any justification. Although similar powers exist in relation to other animal welfare offences, they are not in the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, so they have not been used before in relation to the particular crimes at issue, and I have seen no evidence that they are needed.

Finally, I want to highlight the concerns that have been raised regarding the exemption that the 1953 act provides for dogs that are participating in a hunt, which means that they are not required to be kept under control when they are in a field with sheep. I welcome the clarification that the bill proposes in limiting the application of that exemption

“if and to the extent that the dog is performing the role in question”.

However, some stakeholders have called for the bill to go further on that exemption; their points merit further consideration. The Scottish steering committee of the UK Centre for Animal Law raised that issue and pointed out that

“numerous incidents have been observed in Scotland where packs of foxhounds have been hunting in proximity to flocks of sheep”,

which has caused sheep to panic and run. OneKind called for the exemption for hunting to be revoked altogether, and rightly pointed out that

“Packs of hounds in the vicinity of sheep can cause them considerable stress”,

and, unlike the other exemptions, it is not providing an essential service.

In conclusion I say that although the bill is welcome, it requires change. Many issues were highlighted to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee in our evidence sessions. I thank all those who gave evidence, and I thank the clerks for their work on the committee’s stage 1 report, which brings the concerns together.

I look forward to working with the member in charge of the bill over the coming weeks to discuss the issues, and how to ensure that the legislation will work as effectively as possible and ultimately deliver stronger action to help to protect the livestock of Scotland’s farmers and crofters, which is what we all want.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Members should be aware that speeches are starting to run over time a wee bit. John Finnie has three minutes. [Interruption.]

Excuse me, Mr Finnie—there is a wee issue with your sound. Do not do anything other than start again.

16:41  

John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

I congratulate Emma Harper on getting the bill to this point. The Scottish Green Party will support the general principles of the bill at decision time, but I have grave reservations about its content, as it stands.

Notwithstanding the widespread support for the bill, if the existing legislation does not, as we have heard, enjoy much respect among crofters and farmers, what in the bill will fundamentally change that mindset? What will change the priority or otherwise that Police Scotland gives to the matter? I certainly would not want legislation that would have Police Scotland not fulfilling its obligation to investigate crime.

On the role of inspecting bodies, Parliament needs to be extremely cautious about providing policing and enforcement powers. The powers of entry and search and seizure without warrant were, and remain, unacceptable. Had the member in charge not moved towards having them removed, I and, I am sure, others would have done so.

In dealing with crime, we must have absolute clarity about roles. On the role of vets and the relationship between the vet, the owner of the injured livestock and the owner of the accused or suspected animal, I take some heart from the Scottish Government’s having encouraged Police Scotland, Scotland’s Rural College’s veterinary services and others to develop guidance and to establish contacts to provide expert advice, as appropriate, in individual cases in order to address that. Good grief! Is that not the case now? If not, why not?

I am glad that the question of costs has been clarified. The police investigate crime and meet costs, and they have a relationship with the Scottish Police Authority on forensic examinations.

I am keen that we are to have regard to evidence from the Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the British Veterinary Association. Crimes require to be evidenced, and the integrity and continuity of evidence are very important. The review that the Scottish Government has talked about must address capacity issues.

On the welfare of the animal that is the subject of the accusation, I take the view of the Dogs Trust, which has suggested that, in instances of multiple livestock deaths, post mortems should be considered. That could be mitigating evidence in case of aberration in the behaviour of the dog.

The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has made its position very clear on the issue of search and entry. We have heard nothing to say that the existing warrant arrangements are inadequate. We must legislate only to the extent that it is needed, especially when important rights are being confronted.

There is still a way to go with the bill, but the Scottish Green Party will support it at decision time.

16:44  

Mike Rumbles (North East Scotland) (LD)

I am pleased to see that our committee’s report on the bill is a unanimous one that recommends that Parliament agree to its general principles today. I, too, commend Emma Harper for introducing the bill.

The job of the committee was to examine the bill in detail, to ensure that it was fit for purpose and to see whether and how it could be improved. In the short time that is available to me, I will highlight just two of our recommendations, which previous speeches also addressed.

First, committee members feel that the proposed statutory power for the police to enter and search non-domestic property without a warrant is neither appropriate nor practical. As the convener has said, the committee questioned whether that power would even be legally competent. Personally, I feel that the power runs completely contrary to long-held principles of Scots law. For the police to carry out searches without a warrant would be unacceptable. To use a mixed metaphor, I note that the idea of the police going on a fishing expedition is just not on.

In Emma Harper’s written response to the committee’s report, she noted that her view is that the Scottish Government, as opposed to the committee, is “best placed to decide” whether that is a necessary power, and that if it is the Government’s view that it is not necessary, she would “consider removing the provisions”.

I am glad to have heard Emma Harper confirm that she will lodge an amendment to ensure that a warrant will always be necessary. I heartily welcome that. I also thank the minister, Ben Macpherson, for clearly acknowledging the committee’s concerns—I knew that he would. I say gently to Emma Harper that saying that she would take the Scottish Government’s view as opposed to that of the committee was not particularly helpful ahead of stage 2, but there we are.

Secondly, the committee identified many unresolved issues with the proposal to appoint inspectors to aid the police in their duties. It said:

“The Committee has ... fundamental concerns about the principle of inspection bodies taking the lead in any circumstances in which a criminal offence of livestock worrying has taken place”,

and that

“responsibility for dealing with such criminal offences should lie with the police alone.”

I could not have put it better than John Finnie has just put it. The committee therefore recommended

“that the Member in charge should remove the inspecting bodies provisions from the Bill”.

I was, again, glad this afternoon to hear that Emma Harper will lodge the necessary amendments to do that.

I know that time is short, so, with those two caveats, I am very pleased to recommend to colleagues that we vote to approve the general principles of the bill at decision time. That will allow the bill to proceed to stage 2, when it can usefully be amended to everybody’s satisfaction.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We move to the open debate. We are running a little short of time. All members who are speaking in the debate are likely to end up on gallery view shortly—please be aware that you might be getting shown to the world. Speeches should be no more than three minutes, please. I call Maureen Watt, to be followed by Finlay Carson.

16:48  

Maureen Watt (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

I, too, am pleased to be taking part in this stage 1 debate to urge parliamentary colleagues to allow further consideration of the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, as the committee recommends. I congratulate Emma Harper on pursuing this member’s bill.

I speak as someone who was raised on a farm. I know the heartbreak of losing sheep and lambs due to dog worrying. That farm was more than 2 miles from the nearest town, but dog worrying affects animal owners anywhere. It is not just sheep that are affected, as Emma Harper has said, but other animals, such as cows, mares, nanny goats and all the new species that are being raised on Scottish farmlands. They can abort due to dog worrying and some animals die or have to be put down. Anything that can be done to improve animal welfare and ensure the highest levels of protection should be done, and Emma Harper’s bill adds significantly to that aim.

I thank the many organisations that have sent us briefings prior to the debate and note NFU Scotland’s support, saying that

“there is a need for more robust legislation, stronger penalties and appropriate compensation to hammer home the responsibility and liability of dog owners who do not exercise their pets responsibly on agricultural land. This Bill would be a big step forward.”

I also note the briefing from Scottish Land & Estates, which also supports the principles of the bill but stresses the need for more awareness raising and education to increase prevention and says that that will need a long-term campaign and commitment from all stakeholders. The bill also has the support of the many animal welfare organisations in Scotland.

The bill was given due scrutiny by the committee at stage 1, undergoing detailed questioning on issues such as penalties, compensation, inspecting bodies, the role of vets, the powers of entry, search and seizure, and where the events occur and what constitutes relevant land. In its response to the bill, I note the Scottish Government’s detailed response to the report and its willingness to engage with Emma Harper on the areas in which amendments are seen to be necessary to make the intentions of the bill more fit for purpose.

I welcome the minister to his post. He has said that the vast majority of dog owners walk their pets responsibly in all environments but, sadly, some do not. As members will be aware from their parliamentary inboxes, the issue affects most members of the Scottish Parliament, so I look forward to further consideration of the bill at stage 2.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We seem to be having a few issues with connectivity. I will try Finlay Carson on audio only.

We still seem to be having a problem with Finlay Carson, even if he is just on audio, so we will move on to Claudia Beamish.

16:52  

Claudia Beamish (South Scotland) (Lab)

I thank Emma Harper for bringing forward the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. Scottish Labour fully supports the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s recommendations for the bill at stage 1. I identify myself with the remarks of my colleague and friend Colin Smyth, who is on the committee.

Although I am not on the committee, I am keenly aware of how necessary the legislation is. Much of the South Scotland region that I represent is rural, so dogs worrying livestock is an issue that is regularly raised by many of my constituents, especially those from the farming community. I regularly meet the NFUS and the issue is never far from the agenda.

Jen Craig, chair of the National Sheep Association and NFUS Clydesdale branch chair, farms in my region, quite close to where I am now, and she has expressed real concern about the increase in instances in dog worrying, which have been exacerbated by more people taking to the outdoors during the pandemic, some of whom do not take responsibility for their dogs. She said:

“Dog worrying and attacks on livestock is a problem that is becoming more frequent and in many cases more severe. Not only are the livestock suffering but so are the farmers and stocksmen and women who care for them and have to witness these incidents.

The aftermath of an incident is not only costly in terms of the financial losses but it’s also heartbreaking and leaves a lasting impact on all those involved. Many feel powerless to be able to protect their livestock, prevent it from happening again and feel that justice is rarely achieved.”

The Dogs Trust also highlights that this is an animal welfare issue for the livestock that are attacked and for the dog because of irresponsible dog owners. I am therefore pleased that, through the amendments that will be considered, disqualification orders and dog control notices will be looked at again, and consideration will be given to greater powers to investigate instances and enforce penalties. However, more needs to be done on the bill to ensure that all aspects of the legislation are effective and fit for purpose. How to use existing powers to their full force must also be considered.

Penalties are only part of the solution. It is a notoriously difficult problem for the police, especially in rural and remote areas. If we are really to get underneath the issue, more consistent data gathering on dog worrying instances has to be a priority for the police, along with Scottish Government-backed campaigns to raise awareness of how grave the consequences can be if a dog owner is neglectful or reckless on a simple walk.

I want to stress that the benefits to wellbeing that the outdoors brings should be encouraged for us all. I fully support the work of organisations such as Paths For All and Healthy Valleys, which run very successful dementia walks, for example, in my local area. Those provide wonderful opportunities for people to experience the pleasures that walking can bring.

I am also proud of Scottish Labour’s introduction of the first land reform bill in 2005, which gave the statutory right to roam. However, that comes with a public responsibility. The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill that we are discussing today will be a tangible reminder of that responsibility and Scottish Labour supports the principles of the bill.

16:56  

Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

I declare that I am the joint owner of a very small registered agricultural holding that our neighbour Gordon, who is a farmer, puts sheep on from time to time during the year.

I start by congratulating Emma Harper on all the work that she has undertaken in preparing the bill and taking it through Parliament. I know how extensive that has been because, although she is a South Scotland MSP, I met her at the Turriff show a few years ago—she had come right to the north of Scotland to proselytise about improved protection for animals on farms.

If, like me, members have seen photographs of sheep that have been attacked by dogs that are not under proper control, which I would not wish to show widely to people, they will know why the principle that is at the heart of our consideration today—that we should better protect sheep and other animals that are being cared for in farming settings—is a good one. What I hear from the debate so far is that we all support it.

Creating a legal framework that improves the environment of protection is a substantial and difficult issue, as is demonstrated by the committee’s investigation of the bill and other speeches. I welcome the fact that there appears to be a clear way forward to bring the bill to the statute book after the subsequent phases of consideration.

In some of the speeches, we were in slight danger of forgetting where evidence comes from because it is not simply a matter for the police. It is the police, broadly, who will communicate with the procurator fiscal to initiate prosecutions, but the evidence that will be relied on in those prosecutions will very largely come from people who happen to be in the vicinity, be they vets, farmers or laypersons like me. It is important to remember that that evidence will be tested in a court setting, as is proper to the person who might be accused of an offence.

It is worth saying that, many years ago, when I was a water bailiff under now-obsolete legislation, I could enter premises with the warrant card that I held, so those provisions on entry, which will not be there at the end, are not unique in the history of Scots law.

I congratulate Emma Harper and encourage Parliament to vote unanimously to approve the principles at decision time. I am happy to be here to support the bill.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

For the last of the open speeches we will try Mr Carson again. I know that you will all be disappointed if it is audio only, but we are trying that. Can we hear Finlay Carson this time?

16:59  

Finlay Carson (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)

Good afternoon, Presiding Officer.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Hello, Mr Carson. We can hear you fine.

Finlay Carson

As a former farmer, member of the NFUS and dog owner, I welcome the opportunity to speak in this stage 1 debate. I support in principle the aims of the bill, which rightly seeks to strengthen and update the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 with reference to “livestock worrying”. There is still, without question, a need to review how the 1953 act is working—or, indeed, not working.

However, from the outset, my position and that of other stakeholders is that the best approach to addressing livestock worrying and other dog behaviour would have been for the aims of the bill to form part of a wider consolidation of dog control law. That said, I recognise the hard work of Emma Harper and her staff in the consultation work that was carried out in preparing the bill.

It is unfortunate that it was left to a back bencher to introduce the bill as a result of the Scottish Government’s failure to act in a timely matter. As the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee said in its stage 1 report,

“more immediate action to amend legislation on livestock worrying is merited.”

The Scottish Conservatives welcomed the passing of the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020, which resulted in an increase in the maximum penalties to five-year sentences and unlimited fines. The Law Society of Scotland highlights that tougher sentencing should reduce crime, reform and rehabilitate offenders, protect the public and make the offender give something back. However, we need to ensure that offenders and potential offenders are aware of the nature of the offence and the likely sentences. Prevention is better than cure, but that can come about only following significantly improved efforts to educate the public through a fit-for-purpose publicity campaign.

Christine Grahame’s Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 was brought in to ensure that

“dogs which are out of control are brought and kept under control”.

However, despite being a substantial piece of legislation, it has been generally ineffective because of the lack of awareness of the law among the public, police and local authorities. Indeed, that issue was raised at the Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee. At that time, the Minister for Community Safety said:

“Responsible dog ownership is at the heart of Scottish Government policy in this area, with effective enforcement of existing legislation critical in improving public safety.?”

That makes it even more disappointing that the Scottish Government has not introduced proposals such as those favoured by the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, which considered that the best approach to addressing the issue of livestock worrying would be for it to form part of a wider consolidation of dog control law. That position was supported by the NFUS and others, including Blue Cross, who submit that the bill will help to tackle the problem in a more cohesive manner but should not be seen as a panacea.

Dog control problems are complex and require imagination and innovation to be tackled fully. Great improvements could have been achieved if the Government had introduced a consolidation bill covering not only livestock worrying but dog control, dog breeding, puppy trafficking and responsible dog ownership.

Time is limited today, but I welcome the bill as a short-term plaster to fix an urgent and growing issue that is of great concern to livestock owners in Scotland. It has a great financial and emotional impact on the owner, brings distress to witnesses and veterinary responders and, of course, great pain, distress and, frequently, death to the attacked animal.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We move to closing speeches. We are a wee bit behind time, so it would be useful if members were to apply brevity.

17:03  

Colin Smyth

This afternoon’s debate has set out clearly why the bill is needed, and I welcome the consensus that we have heard in support of the principles of the bill. However, the debate has also highlighted the many problems with the bill as it stands and the changes that we will need to make to ensure that it is as robust as possible. I set out my views on that during my opening speech, and many of the concerns were echoed by other members in the debate, so I will not repeat them. Instead, I will make some final observations.

As we heard in the debate, the changes that the bill proposes would ideally have been introduced as part of a more comprehensive review of dog control laws. It is disappointing that delays to the Scottish Government’s work in this area have made it necessary to introduce stand-alone legislation on one aspect of the many changes in law that we need. It is therefore important that we try to ensure that the bill is ultimately consistent with its wider legislative context, in order to avoid unnecessary fragmentation and possible conflicts in related laws.

For example, it has been suggested that the penalties in the bill should be brought into line with those that were introduced in the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020 for other animal welfare-related offences. I support that, particularly if it is the Scottish Government’s intention to set fines at that level in the future for other crimes related to dog control. That increase would also allow greater flexibility for the courts to respond to individual cases as they see fit and send a clear message on the seriousness of the crime. However, it is equally important to emphasise that penalties must be applied appropriately, particularly if the maximum penalty is to be increased so drastically.

Crucially, although the bill will make welcome changes to how such crimes are dealt with once they have occurred, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the first priority must always be prevention. In her response to the committee, Emma Harper rightly noted that

“in most cases incidents of livestock worrying and attack are likely not premeditated and often lack ... intent to cause harm.”

That point was made by a number of stakeholders in their evidence to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. For example, the National Dog Warden Association Scotland said:

“Most dog owners do not believe their dog is likely to attack sheep and are shocked and distraught after the event.”

Likewise, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home highlighted that livestock worrying often occurs when the owner is not even present. It pointed to a report by the United Kingdom Parliament’s all-party parliamentary group for animal welfare that found that two thirds of incidents occurred when the dog had escaped from the house or garden of a neighbouring property. That highlights the need for the bill to be accompanied by an awareness campaign to communicate the risks that exist and the seriousness of the issue, as well as to make people aware of the laws and any new penalties.

The Dogs Trust highlighted the need to gain a better understanding of the issue. It pointed out:

“By working to better understand the problem, we believe it will be possible to undertake targeted proactive measures that aim to result in the prevention of worrying, therefore protecting the welfare of livestock more robustly.”

A number of stakeholders highlighted how underreporting and inconsistent data collection make it difficult to get a clear picture of the scope of the issue. As my colleague Claudia Beamish stressed, that needs to be addressed so that we can monitor the problem and ensure that the changes, if they are enacted, have the desired effect. That is the case for all animal and wildlife crime.

I know that time is tight in this debate, but it is also tight until the end of this parliamentary session. A considerable amount of work will be needed if the bill is to be fit for purpose. Labour will certainly support the principles of the bill, and we will do all that we can to ensure that changes are made to deliver on the intention of protecting the livestock of Scotland’s farmers and crofters.

17:07  

Peter Chapman (North East Scotland) (Con)

I welcome the opportunity to close the debate for the Scottish Conservatives. I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I am a partner in a farming business.

As my Scottish Conservative colleagues have stated, we are generally supportive of the bill and recognise that livestock worrying by dogs is an increasing issue, to the point that it is becoming almost impossible to keep livestock in some fields near towns and villages. Official statistics show that there were more than 230 cases of dogs worrying livestock in the north-east in the past five years. However, we need to recognise that that is only the tip of the iceberg, because many incidents are not recorded.

It is important to highlight that any attacks on livestock do not just have a financial impact on livestock owners, serious though that can be. The emotional stress of witnessing an attack and the aftermath of the attack place a great mental strain on farmers, too. Therefore, there is an urgent need for the law on livestock worrying to be updated and strengthened. The current £1,000 fine, which is laid out in the 1953 act, is simply too low. The proposed increased fines and/or custodial sentences of up to 12 months better reflect the gravity of the offence and the impact that it has on farmers.

The implementation of disqualification orders to restrict the right of a person who is convicted of a livestock worrying offence from owning a dog, and their rights of access to agricultural land when accompanied by a dog, will help to reduce incidences of livestock worrying. However, some elements of disqualification orders are not clear. For example, how is banning a convicted person from bringing a dog on to agricultural land to be enforced? Some witnesses also wondered how we would decide what agricultural land is. Moreover, given the increase in the number of dog walking services, there are questions about where responsibility would lie if another person who was deemed to be fit and proper was in charge of a dog at the time of an attack.

A number of stakeholders have noted the importance of compensation for livestock keepers. I highlight that compensation is already available under the current legislation. The problem is that the existing compensation mechanisms are not widely known among livestock keepers, so an awareness campaign about existing compensation schemes is sorely needed.

Further clarity is also needed on the role of inspecting bodies and who they may be. Both the Scottish SPCA and local authorities have expressed reluctance to take on that role, citing a lack of resources, but they have stated that they would be happy to assist the police. In my view, there is no doubt that the police must retain overall responsibility for pursuing the crime.

There are also questions regarding the role of vets in examining a dog. Will the police be given authority to give consent or will that remain with the owner? Who would be responsible for covering the cost of a vet? The bill also contains proposals to grant the power of entry, search and seizure without a warrant when cases are being investigated. There is a lack of clarity around the practical use of that power, and it raises serious legal questions. I therefore believe, and the committee believes, that the power must be dropped.

In conclusion, the Scottish Conservatives are generally supportive of the bill and see why it is needed. However, some aspects need further clarification. We therefore call on Emma Harper to take note of the concerns that members on all sides of the chamber have raised and to work with the committee and the Government to improve the bill.

17:11  

Ben Macpherson

I welcome the consensus on the amendments that the bill requires, and in particular on the merit of making the agreed changes to the 1953 act at this time.

I note the points that John Finnie and Claudia Beamish raised about prosecution and resources for investigation. I am happy to liaise with members, including Emma Harper, on those matters ahead of stage 2.

Claudia Beamish, Colin Smyth and Finlay Carson made points around looking again at dog control notices. I simply highlight the Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee’s report on the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010, and the committee’s on-going work, which will include hearing from the Minister for Community Safety shortly.

There is also a Scottish Government-led working group that covers animal welfare policy. Participation in that forum has involved looking at both legislative and non-legislative opportunities to improve the dog control notice regime, and that work will continue. I am happy to liaise with members on those matters ahead of stage 2, if that would be helpful.

I again thank Emma Harper for seeking to modernise the legislation in a practical way, in order to address the concerns of the farming community. As Stewart Stevenson mentioned, dog attacks can have devastating effects, such as the horrific reported killing of 50 pregnant sheep in Wales just a few days ago. I know that farmers care deeply about the welfare of their livestock, and the bill will help to ensure that all animals in Scotland, whether they are farm-dwelling or companion animals, receive the protection that they deserve.

I maintain that the focused changes that are proposed in the bill will have an immediate impact in raising public awareness of not only what is in the bill, but the associated general issues, as Peter Chapman emphasised. I believe that the passage of the bill will, in due course, help to assure the farming community that this Parliament takes the matter of livestock worrying very seriously.

Given the stage that we are at in the parliamentary cycle, and the undoubted on-going impacts of the pandemic and of European Union exit, I hope that members will work collaboratively to allow the swift passage of this focused bill through stage 1 and on to completion by the end of the parliamentary session. The bill, as amended in the ways that we have debated today, will strengthen the law and help to reduce distressing attacks on livestock and the associated mental and financial hardship that those attacks cause to all concerned. The Scottish Government therefore supports the general principles of the bill and urges the Parliament to pass it at stage 1, at decision time.

17:14  

Emma Harper

I will pick up on a few points in closing, but first I thank all members for their contributions today. I also thank the members of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, and the minister for his supportive comments and his contribution in closing. Finally, I thank the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Tourism, Fergus Ewing, and the Minister for Public Health and Sport, Mairi Gougeon, for their encouragement in respect of the bill.

The minister said that the goal is to make the bill simple and effective. That was my intention from the start. A farmer in Ayr told me, “Keep it simple.”

The bill deals with a minority of irresponsible people. We know that most dog owners are responsible outdoors. Claudia Beamish was right to say that accessing the outdoors is a good thing. We want folk to do that and we know that it supports mental health. The issue applies to only a minority of people.

I am happy to engage further with Edward Mountain and all committee members about the disqualification orders.

Jamie Halcro Johnston highlighted financial costs. That is a huge problem caused by out-of-control dogs. We know that NFU Mutual paid out £1.6 million to settle members’ claims in 2017 and has noted a 67 per cent increase in the cost of livestock worrying incidents.

Colin Smyth also presented specific statistics when he said that 72 per cent of NFU members had experienced attacks on their sheep.

I note the idea of exemptions for hunting dogs and I am willing to discuss that.

I welcome the scrutiny and comments from Mike Rumbles and John Finnie. They are fellow committee members and have much experience. I welcome any support that they can give me as we take the bill forward.

We know that there have been many campaigns to educate folk over the years, such as take the lead and take a lead. Those are great: I support any continued education, including any by NatureScot or Police Scotland in the partnership against rural crime. However, Mike Flynn of the Scottish SPCA asked the committee why, if education worked, we are still seeing an increase in attacks on sheep. We need to do more and I hope that the bill will deter irresponsible access to the countryside.

We know that the harm is caused by a minority of people, but farmers are asking for legislation. They asked me for stand-alone legislation and that is what I am trying to achieve. I will finish by giving the final word to a sheep farmer called Brian Walker, who is one of Mike Rumbles’s constituents. This is what he told me:

“Having been on the sharp end of various livestock attacks in recent years, I am left in no doubt. The law needs to be brought up to date as soon as possible to reflect modern times.”

I encourage members to support the general principles of the bill and I am keen to see any amendments as we move forward.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes the stage 1 debate on the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill.

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

Before I put the first question, I remind members that, if the amendment in the name of Michael Russell is agreed to, the amendment in the name of Monica Lennon will fall.

The first question is, that amendment S5M-23958.3, in the name of Michael Russell, which seeks to amend motion S5M-23958, in the name of Donald Cameron, on prioritising Covid-19 vaccination and economic recovery, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

I suspend the meeting to allow members to access the voting app.

17:26 Meeting suspended.  

17:31 On resuming—  

The Presiding Officer

We will go straight to the vote. I remind members that we are voting on amendment S5M-23958.3, in the name of Michael Russell, which seeks to amend motion S5M-23958, in the name of Donald Cameron, on prioritising Covid-19 vaccination and economic recovery. This is a one-minute division.

The vote is now closed. If members have any issues, please let me know by raising a point of order.

The Minister for Europe and International Development (Jenny Gilruth)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I was not able to vote, but I would have voted yes.

The Presiding Officer

Thank you very much, Ms Gilruth. We will add your name to the register.

Claudia Beamish (South Scotland) (Lab)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted no. I was not able to type in the PIN today, for the first time.

The Presiding Officer

Thank you, Ms Beamish. I note that you would have voted no. That will be added to the register as well.

A number of members online are asking for confirmation that their votes were registered. We are just checking that.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Ind)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Reform)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division on amendment S5M-23958.3, in the name of Michael Russell, which seeks to amend motion S5M-23958, in the name of Donald Cameron, on prioritising Covid-19 vaccination and economic recovery, is: For 65, Against 56, Abstentions 0.

Amendment agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

The amendment in the name of Monica Lennon is therefore pre-empted.

The next question is, that motion S5M-23958, in the name of Donald Cameron, on prioritising Covid vaccination and economic recovery, as amended, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division. This will be a one-minute division.

The vote is now closed. Please let me know if you believe that your vote was not registered or counted.

Claudia Beamish

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I still could not type in the PIN. I would have voted no.

The Presiding Officer

Thank you, Ms Beamish. Your vote will be recorded and added to the register.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Ind)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Reform)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)

The Convener

The result of the division on motion S5M-23958, in the name of Donald Cameron, on prioritising Covid vaccination and economic recovery, as amended, is: For 65, Against 56, Abstentions 0.

Motion, as amended, agreed to,

That the Parliament believes that the people of Scotland have the right to choose their own future and to escape the disastrous hard Brexit that Boris Johnson and the UK Conservative Administration are imposing on them; notes that the Scottish Government paused work on independence to focus on the pandemic in contrast to the UK Government, which recklessly pursued Brexit and ended the transition period at the worst possible time; supports the Scottish Government’s decision to follow the JCVI priority list for the first phase of the vaccination programme, which has been drawn up by independent experts to provide the greatest possible protection against preventable mortality from COVID-19; agrees that it is for the people of Scotland to decide what sort of country and economy should be built following the pandemic, and that therefore, should there be a majority in the next Parliament for an independence referendum after the pandemic, there can be no justification whatsoever to deny people in Scotland their democratic rights.

The Presiding Officer

The next question is, that motions S5M-23973 and S5M-23975 to S5M-23978, all in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, be agreed to.

Motions agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees that the Criminal Legal Aid and Advice and Assistance (Counter-Terrorism and Border Security) (Scotland) Regulations 2021 [draft] be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Restitution Fund (Scotland) Order 2021 [draft] be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014 (Supplementary Provisions) Order 2021 [draft] be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that, under Rule 12.3.3B of Standing Orders, the Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints can meet, if necessary, at the same time as a meeting of the Parliament on Tuesday 2 February 2021 and Tuesday 9 February 2021 from approximately 3.30pm to Decision Time.

That the Parliament agrees that the Justice Committee be designated as the lead committee in consideration of the legislative consent memorandum in relation to the Financial Services Bill (UK Legislation).

The Presiding Officer

The next question is, that motion S5M-23988, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, on approval of a Scottish statutory instrument, be agreed to.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees that the Single Use Carrier Bags Charge (Coronavirus) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2021 [draft] be approved.

The Presiding Officer

The final question is the one that we deferred from last Thursday. The question is, that motion S5M-23916, in the name of Emma Harper, on the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill at stage 1, be agreed to.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill.

Meeting closed at 17:39.  

The Convener (Edward Mountain)

Good morning, and welcome to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s seventh meeting in 2021. I ask members to ensure that their mobile phones are in silent mode. The meeting will be conducted in virtual format.

The first item on the agenda is stage 2 consideration of the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. I welcome Emma Harper, the member in charge of the bill; Christine Grahame, the committee substitute for Emma Harper, who is attending for this agenda item; and Ben Macpherson, the Minister for Rural Affairs and the Natural Environment.

Before we go any further, I ask members whether they wish to make a declaration. I will start. In my entry in the register of members’ interests, I have recorded that I am a member of a family farming partnership in Moray.

Peter Chapman (North East Scotland) (Con)

I, too, am a member of a farming partnership.

Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

I jointly own a very small registered agricultural holding from which I derive no income.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

I, too, am a partner in a farming business.

The Convener

Before we begin, I will recap how the stage 2 process works in a virtual setting. Members, the member in charge and the minister will be called to speak to their amendments in the usual way. Members who have not lodged amendments in a group but who wish to speak should indicate such by inserting an R in the chat function. I will ensure that they are called to speak.

Voting on amendments will be carried out electronically, using the chat function. I will separately call members to vote yes, no or abstain. Committee members should type their vote into the chat box—Y for yes, N for no, A for abstain—and the result will be read out in full, with the names of who voted for each option and the vote result. It is vital that that is done to ensure that the correct vote is recorded.

As has happened before, if we lose connection to a member or to the minister during stage 2 proceedings, I will suspend the meeting until the connection is re-established. In the unlikely event that reconnection is not possible, we will need to reschedule our stage 2 consideration.

If a member loses connection at the point at which he or she is required to move an amendment and the connection cannot be restored after a brief pause, another member from the same party group will move the amendment. That member will have an opportunity to speak to the amendment if it has not already been debated. If the member who is required to move the amendment loses their connection and does not have a party group member present to move their amendment, I will suspend the meeting to allow the connection to be restored.

If a committee member loses their connection at the point at which a division is called or when it is taking place, I will suspend the meeting for up to 10 minutes to allow the connection to be restored. During that period, the clerks will contact the member who has lost their connection and clarify whether she or he is content for the vote to proceed without them, if the connection is still lost. The vote will be delayed beyond 10 minutes only in the likelihood of a close division.

I hope that that adequately explains the process. We now move to consideration of amendments.

Section 1—Offence under section 1 of the 1953 Act: name, definition and penalty

The Convener

Amendment 1, in the name of John Finnie, is in a group on its own.

John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)

Amendment 1 is about an exemption in the fine piece of legislation that is before us. I think that many people would be surprised that there are any exemptions, given that the protection of livestock is a significant animal welfare issue—the clue is in the bill’s name.

My proposal is simple. I think that we all readily accept that it is a bad idea to have a dog loose among livestock, with the notable exception of the stockperson’s dog to deal with sheep, cattle or whatever. It is an even worse idea to have a number of dogs loose—I would say that regardless of whether we were talking about sled dogs, greyhounds, terriers or whatever.

The existing exemption for police dogs is appropriate—I declare that I am a former police dog handler—for the circumstances in which a police dog handler finds themselves among livestock. Ideally, the aim would be to encourage the relocation of livestock if a search was being conducted for stolen property or if specialist dogs were looking for explosives, drugs, firearms or human remains. That is a key role in the protection of life or property; a police dog would be properly controlled, so that exemption is appropriate.

There is no logic in continuing to allow livestock to be subject to the intrusion of a group of dogs for whatever reason, not least because of the impact that that could have—as a farmer, the convener will know about that. That could cause livestock distress, which is compounded if the animals are pregnant or nursing—if that is the correct term. Trauma is associated with that. For all those reasons, I will move my reasonable amendment.

I move amendment 1.

Mike Rumbles (North East Scotland) (LD)

I disagree with amendment 1. The legislation already makes exemptions; as John Finnie said, police dogs are exempted. There is an exemption for a dog that is lawfully used in pest control, but John Finnie would remove the exemption for such lawful activity. There is no need to do that. I will not rehearse the arguments about hunting with dogs that we have had over the past 22 years. The legislation is about dogs that are used for pest control. If John Finnie’s amendment was agreed to, it would lead to a lot of problems.

I do not support John Finnie’s amendment, which I know was lodged with good intention, and I ask him not to press it. I do not think that it will have committee members’ support, but I am willing to listen.

Jamie Halcro Johnston

I will not rehearse the position that Mike Rumbles described, which summed up my concerns. The exemption is for pest control, and the dogs are used with the permission of landowners and farmers for them to be there. Amendment 1 is more ideologically based than about the welfare of livestock, so I will not support it.

Christine Grahame (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)

I will not support amendment 1. When we talk about using a group of dogs, let us be honest that that is fox hunting by another name—that is all that I can think of. I totally oppose fox hunting and I have no problem with banning it, to be frank. However, that is not what we are talking about today, and this is not the place for such an amendment.

I do not recall the issue being teased out in stage 1 evidence. I am old-fashioned and I think that evidence should be teased out at stage 1 on things that are to be proposed at stage 2. That allows the parties on both sides, or a group of people who are interested, to give their evidence.

I wholly support what John Finnie is trying to do, but this is the wrong place for it. We have not taken evidence on the issue, so I will not support the amendment.

Colin Smyth (South Scotland) (Lab)

Amendment 1, in the name of John Finnie, is entirely reasonable and would remove the exemption that allows dogs to be at large in a field with sheep provided that they are part of a hunt. It would remove what is a totally unnecessary loophole that we know causes sheep a great deal of distress. The exemption legitimises what is a cruel so-called sport that should rightfully have been banned almost a decade ago. Although I appreciate that the exemption does not allow dogs to attack or chase sheep, the distinction between such behaviour is not at all clear.

Christine Grahame said that the matter was not teased out in evidence and that we did not take evidence on it. We did. In its evidence to the committee, the UK Centre for Animal Law Scottish steering committee raised the issue and pointed out that

“numerous incidents have been observed in Scotland where packs of foxhounds have been hunting in proximity to flocks of sheep”,

which causes sheep to panic and run, even if the dogs are not strictly chasing them.

Similarly, OneKind called for the exemption for hunting to be removed altogether, highlighting that, even if dogs do not attack or chase,

“Packs of hounds in the vicinity of sheep can cause them considerable stress.”

It also highlighted the crucial point that, unlike with other exemptions in the section, the dogs are not providing an “essential” service. I highlighted that point in the stage 1 debate, so we have discussed and debated the issue.

There is good reason for the law requiring that dogs be kept under control in the countryside. Frankly, I can see no practical reason why the exemption should continue. There are practical exemptions for sheep dogs, given the specific nature of their role, and for guide dogs. However, the exemption for hunting turns a blind eye to the problem that is caused to livestock by hounds hunting foxes. The exemption means that there is one law for blood sports and one law for families walking their pets. I can see no justification for the exemption continuing.

Frankly, there is no justification for hunting continuing, but the very least that we can do is hold hunts to the same basic rules that we ask the general public to follow. As I said, I highlighted the issue in the stage 1 debate.

I thank John Finnie for raising this important issue, and I urge members—particularly those who claim to oppose fox hunting—to support amendment 1. Actions speak a lot louder than words.

The Convener

I would like to comment on amendment 1 before we hear from the minister. Given the wide area of ground that can be farmed and used for grazing in Scotland—which includes, on the margins of hill ground, areas of juniper and gorse bushes—it is entirely proper that dogs can, under the legislation, be used to flush out foxes from cover. The law allows that; it does not allow hunting. I regret to say that I think that Colin Smyth has misunderstood the legislation on hunting in Scotland, which is entirely proper. It would be improper to try to contain and move sheep to allow such activity to go on. Therefore, amendment 1 is faulty and I will not support it.

I like to allow members to come in once and then move on, but I see that Christine Grahame wants to come in again.

Christine Grahame

[Inaudible.]—by Colin Smyth. I defer to no one in my position on fox hunting, but I do not think that we should slide such provisions into a bill that is called the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. If we are to ban fox hunting—which I want us to do—we should do so through a stand-alone piece of legislation. That is my position. I want to defend myself. It is not the case that I approve of fox hunting, but I do not approve of the particular amendment to this particular bill.

The Minister for Rural Affairs and the Natural Environment (Ben Macpherson)

Good morning. Thank you, convener, for the opportunity to respond on amendment 1.

The Scottish Government has made it clear that the legislation that was introduced in 2002 to protect foxes from unnecessary hunting has not had the desired effect. We have therefore committed to acting on many of the recommendations in Lord Bonomy’s review to clarify and strengthen the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002.

09:45  

Although I understand why John Finnie might wish to try to advance the agenda of protecting foxes through this bill, there are a number of issues with amendment 1. Currently, it is an offence for a dog to be at large—not on a lead or otherwise under close control—in a field or enclosure in which there are sheep. One exception to that is when the owner of the dog is there with the permission of the owner of the sheep. There is another exemption for police dogs, guide dogs, trained sheep dogs, working gun dogs or a dog lawfully used to hunt.

The last part of the definition could include situations in which a dog is being used to control rats or rabbits at the request of a neighbouring farmer or landowner, as well as dogs being used to support people on foot who are carrying out legitimate fox control. It would seem completely disproportionate to make it an offence, in those situations, to do something that does not actually cause harm to livestock and that may be incidental to a perfectly legitimate use of a dog.

The bill will extend the exemption to include other assistance dogs while adding the condition for all types of dogs that the exemption will apply only if, and to the extent that, the dog is

“performing the role in question”.

Amendment 1 would, unhelpfully, remove that added condition for all types of dogs, including police dogs and trained sheep dogs.

Regarding the issue of fox control, we are strongly committed to safeguarding animal welfare, including that of wild animals—notably, foxes. It is disappointing that, owing to the need to prioritise our response to the unprecedented challenges of Covid-19, we have not been able to introduce a bill on fox control in the timetable that was originally planned. It is because of the practical implications of our response to Covid, which has been necessary to save lives, that the Parliament has been physically unable to operate as planned.

We remain absolutely committed to introducing legislation on fox control, and we intend to do it during the next Parliament if we are re-elected to Government. The bill that we are debating today is not the place to attempt to introduce new controls on hunting with dogs. I acknowledge the intent behind Mr Finnie’s amendment, but it is neither needed here nor helpful, as it could affect a wide range of legitimate work that is carried out by dogs. I am sure that that is not the intention, and I hope that Mr Finnie will withdraw amendment 1 accordingly. Should he not withdraw amendment 1, I hope that the committee will not support it.

Emma Harper (South Scotland) (SNP)

Mr Finnie has set out his reasoning for lodging amendment 1. In essence, the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 makes the owner of a dog criminally liable if the dog is “at large” in a field of sheep, but it includes an exemption for specific categories of dog, including a dog that is “lawfully used to hunt”.

Amendment 1, in the name of John Finnie, would do two things: it would remove hunting dogs from the exemption and it would remove the new provision, added by the bill, that all the categories of dogs listed in the 1953 act, including those added by the bill, are exempted when they are working by

“performing the role in question”.

I do not support either of the effects of amendment 1. On the first point, I do not consider that my member’s bill is the right vehicle through which to pursue hunting-specific concerns. As the minister has just said, it is likely that the issue of hunting will be considered in the next session of Parliament—such issues should be considered then, in their full context and with a full debate with stakeholders and the public.

I also do not support removing the qualification that is added by the bill, that the exempted dogs are exempt only when

“performing the role in question”.

That qualification was not criticised during the stage 1 process, and there have been no suggestions that it should be removed. It adds a helpful qualification to the 1953 act and ensures that, for example, a guide dog is exempted only when performing the guide dog role and otherwise should be treated like any other dog—for example, when being exercised by a sighted person. That provides added protection for livestock owners, and I do not support weakening the bill by removing the provision.

On Monday, I spoke with one of the inspectors in the Scottish partnership against rural crime, and they have not had any evidence of livestock being attacked or worried by dogs used in the control of foxes.

For those reasons, I urge the committee to reject amendment 1.

John Finnie

I thank all the members who have taken part in the debate. We are debating the protection of livestock and that is what I was talking about. Members have chosen to take a different approach to the discussion and that is a matter for them. The debate has been peppered with euphemisms, starting with Mike Rumbles, who used the term “pest control”. I take great exception to Mr Halcro Johnston’s pejorative comment that I am being ideological and am not interested in the welfare of livestock. That is a shameful thing to say. I hope that he will reflect on that comment and offer an apology.

I have a great regard for Christine Grahame, our Deputy Presiding Officer, particularly when it comes to parliamentary procedure. Of course, it would have been helpful if Christine Grahame had been aware of all the evidence that has been offered on the topic. I do not accept her reprimand and I most certainly do not accept that the amendment is incompetent. If the amendment were incompetent, convener, you would have ruled it as such. Amendment 1 is perfectly competent and has a sound basis.

As is frequently the case, I am grateful to my colleague Colin Smyth, who made a detailed résumé of the evidence that we have had on the matter.

In your comments, convener, you talked about the margins and juniper bushes. That is the sort of territory that I am very familiar with and, in fairness, you accurately outlined the law as it is supposed to operate. However, as we then heard from the minister, it is not how it is operating in practice.

Members have said that I am trying to “advance an agenda”. I have never once mentioned foxes in relation to the amendment. The minister mentioned safeguarding. The bill that we are discussing is about safeguarding livestock. I hear the member in charge of the bill suggesting that a proposal that I am not putting forward should be the subject of full debate. For the avoidance of any doubt, I say that of course I would like to see a ban on fox hunting and, although I will not be around in the next session, I wish the incoming Government—if indeed it is the minister’s Government—the very best of luck in securing such a ban. We know that livestock have been harmed. Of course, the inducement of compensation paid to the owner of land that hunts go over has been seen as some way of offsetting those concerns. However, my concern in amendment 1 is simply the wellbeing of livestock.

I go right back to what I said at the beginning. It is not a good idea to have any dog loose among livestock. It is an even worse idea to have several dogs loose. That can have a negative impact on the wellbeing of livestock, which is my simple concern.

The Convener

Before we vote on the amendment, I point out that Christine Grahame is here as a member of the committee. Although she has another role in the Parliament, that is nothing to do with her role on the committee—that is just an observation

The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

We are not agreed, so there will be a division. In the chat box, please type Y to vote for the amendment, N to vote against the amendment, or A to abstain.

For

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)

Against

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 9, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 1 disagreed to.

The Convener

Amendment 2, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 3 to 5.

Ben Macpherson

It is important that the range of penalties for offences under the bill is sufficient to be proportionate but also appropriate for the seriousness of the offence committed. Throughout the bill consultation and during stage 1, we heard about horrific instances of the impact on farmed animals and farmers and crofters and their families when animals had been killed or horribly injured by dogs that were out of control on their land. We have considered the proposed penalties carefully, and we have considered the recommendations of the committee’s stage 1 report. We have also considered the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Powers and Protections) (Scotland) Act 2020, which has now been commenced. The maximum penalties for many wildlife crime offences as well as offences specified in regulations that are made under part 2 of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006—aside from the regulations for fixed-penalty notices—are now 12 months’ imprisonment or a fine of up to £40,000, or both.

Accordingly, it is important to ensure consistency of approach to penalties in the bill with the increased maximum penalties in the 2020 act for animal welfare offences and a wide range of wildlife crime offences. My amendments therefore propose to increase the maximum penalty in the bill from six months’ imprisonment and/or a level 5 fine—currently £5,000—to 12 months’ imprisonment and/or a £40,000 fine. That would, rightly, still allow for courts to impose appropriate penalties, depending on the particular facts and circumstances of the case.

Amendments 2 and 3 are the substantive ones in the group; amendments 4 and 5 are consequential and technical.

I hope that committee members agree with that approach and support amendments 2 to 5.

I move amendment 2.

Mike Rumbles

I have no issue about raising the level of the fine. If damage is done to stock to that extent, that is absolutely correct. Does the minister think that there is any difference in the deterrent effect or level of punishment of imprisoning somebody for six months or for 12 months? I would imagine that sending somebody to prison would be enough of a deterrent or a punishment. Why set those levels—other than just for the sake of tidying up legislation? I was listening very carefully to what the minister said about making the fines in the bill the same as those in other pieces of legislation. I am concerned that we are increasing the period of imprisonment because it sounds tough. What is the evidence for these levels, other than just tidying up legislation? Is there any evidence to suggest that increasing the period of imprisonment from six to 12 months is reasonable?

The Convener

That was a question. I am not sure that this session is a time for taking evidence but, minister, if you would like to respond to that, I will be delighted to let you in; if not, I will move on to the member in charge of the bill.

10:00  

Ben Macpherson

Perhaps I can address it in my summing up.

The Convener

Thank you very much. No one else has indicated that they wish to speak, so I call the member in charge of the bill, Emma Harper.

Emma Harper

As the minister has explained, the bill increases the maximum penalties that are available. That was a key part of my policy. I wanted to increase the maximum available penalties significantly, so that they could act as a greater deterrent, while setting them at an appropriate level in order to acknowledge that, in most instances, the owner has no intent to cause harm.

At stage 1, the then Minister for Rural Affairs and the Natural Environment noted that there might be a case for increasing the penalties even further, to match those available under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, as amended by the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020. The 2020 act had not been passed when my bill was consulted on or drafted. The committee’s stage 1 report supported the Government’s view and recommended amending the bill accordingly. I am content to support amendments 2 and 3, in the name of the minister, to further increase the maximum available penalties in the bill to a maximum prison sentence of 12 months and a maximum fine of £40,000.

Amendments 4 and 5, which were also lodged by the minister, have the effect that the increased maximum penalties in the bill and the order-making powers under section 2 will apply only to offences that are committed after those provisions have come into force. I agree with that policy intention and am therefore content to support those amendments.

Ben Macpherson

I thank Mike Rumbles and Emma Harper for their comments. The action that the amendments seek to undertake is in line with the recommendations of the committee and the discussions that we had collectively in the stage 1 debate. The intention of the amendments, as I put forward in my opening remarks, is—quite rightly, in the Government’s view—to ensure consistency of approach between the penalties in the bill and the increased maximum penalties that are now available for a wide range of animal welfare and wildlife crime offences.

On Mike Rumbles’s specific questions about the effect of sentencing on the propensity to offend, I think that that is a wider question that is perhaps for others in the Justice Committee or elsewhere to consider. The point is that our approach to sentencing is based on the seriousness of the crime in question. It was deemed by the committee—and by the Government, in bringing the amendments—that, in order to emphasise the seriousness of the crime that we are discussing, it was right and appropriate to bring in amendments to ensure that the approach to penalties was consistent with the increased maximum penalties that are, in effect, now available for a wide range of animal welfare and wildlife crime.

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we agreed? If you do not agree, type N in the chat box.

We are not agreed. There will be a division.

For

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

Against

Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 10, Against 1, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

Amendments 3 and 4 moved—[Ben Macpherson]—and agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Section 2—Power to make order in respect of person convicted

Amendment 5 moved—[Ben Macpherson]—and agreed to.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

Section 3—Power to seize etc dog suspected of attacking or worrying livestock

The Convener

The next group is on removal of power to appoint inspecting bodies and inspectors. Amendment 6, in the name of Emma Harper, is grouped with amendments 7 to 14, 16 to 24 and 27. I draw members’ attention to the information on pre-emption in the groupings document. If amendment 15, which seeks to remove the ability to search without a warrant, is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 14.

Emma Harper

The bill currently allows the Scottish ministers, by regulation, to appoint inspecting bodies, which, in turn, can appoint inspectors. The policy intention was to allow for the provision of more formal support to the police if that was thought necessary. However, evidence at stage 1, including from the police and the Scottish SPCA, stated that the provisions may not be required and that no organisation seemed willing to take on the role of inspecting body.

I acknowledge the committee’s stage 1 report, and its recommendation that the provisions be removed. In order to achieve that, I have lodged amendment 22, which will remove section 5 in its entirety. The other amendments in the group will remove all reference to inspectors, and cross-references to section 5 or to the provisions that it would insert into the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953.

I move amendment 6.

Colin Smyth

The amendments in this group, which I support, reflect the calls that the committee made in its stage 1 report. In that report, we noted our

“fundamental concerns about the principle of inspection bodies taking the lead in any circumstances in which a criminal offence of livestock worrying has taken place”,

and we made a clear recommendation that

“the Member in charge should remove the inspecting bodies provisions from the Bill during the amending stages of the Bill, should it proceed.”

That recommendation was made after a number of stakeholders raised concerns about the role of the new body, and the lack of clarity about its intended role and whether the enabling powers would be used at all. There was widespread agreement among stakeholders and committee members that the police remain the most appropriate body to lead investigations on the issue.

There is a need for more specialism when it comes to investigating animal welfare and wildlife crimes and a discussion remains to be had about the best way of achieving that. The vague enabling powers that are proposed in the bill are not the best way to go about it. I asked the bills team to draw up amendments to remove those provisions but felt it fair to wait to see whether the member in charge would take a similar approach and lodge such amendments. I am pleased that Emma Harper has done so. I support the amendments and strongly urge other members to do so.

John Finnie

I have a brief comment. Like Colin Smyth, I will lend support to these amendments, which are entirely appropriate. Following the comments of the member in charge, I would not want any inference to be drawn that it was the absence of any bodies coming forward that had any influence on my decision to reject this provision. Parliament has to be extremely cautious when giving policing powers to any bodies and it is for that reason that I was always opposed to the proposal in the bill to do that. I entirely welcome the member lodging the amendments in this group to remove this provision.

Ben Macpherson

The Scottish Government supports these amendments to drop the provisions regarding inspecting bodies, including the power of the Scottish ministers to appoint inspecting bodies and the powers of search, entry and seizure so far as they relate to the powers of inspectors. I assure the committee that I have given this matter careful consideration and have noted the concerns that the committee expressed in its stage 1 report.

I understand the intention of those who seek a role for bodies other than the police to investigate potential crime offences under the bill but, on balance, there are important reasons why it is the police that are the investigating body across the full panoply of criminal law in Scotland. I am also not convinced that other inspecting bodies are generally able or willing to take a leading role in investigations of livestock worrying.

I therefore agree with Emma Harper that responsibility for investigating the criminal offence of livestock worrying should remain with the police, with assistance from local authorities or the Scottish SPCA as appropriate in the circumstances. I hope that the committee supports Emma Harper’s amendments.

Emma Harper

For clarification, my intention was always that the police would be the leader in any investigation. The intention of the original provision in the bill was so that the police could obtain support, if necessary, from a local authority or an inspecting body that would be appointed. Based on the evidence that we had at stage 1, I was happy to press these amendments to remove references to inspecting bodies.

Amendment 6 agreed to.

Amendments 7 to 9 moved—[Emma Harper]—and agreed to.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

Section 4—Powers to authorise entry, search, seizure etc

 

Amendments 10 to 13 moved—[Emma Harper]—and agreed to.

10:15  

The Convener

Amendment 15, in the name of Emma Harper, is in a group on its own. I draw members’ attention to the pre-emption information on the groupings list: if amendment 15 is agreed to, I will not be able call amendment 14 from the group on the removal of the power to appoint inspecting bodies and inspectors.

Emma Harper

The bill gives the police specific new powers to enter and search premises. That currently includes—under new section 2A(6) of the 1953 act—a power to do so “without a warrant” in specific circumstances. Evidence was given at stage 1 by the police that that power would be very unlikely ever to be used, and it is not one that the police are seeking.

I acknowledge the committee’s concerns on the issue during stage 1 and the recommendation to remove the provision that was made in the committee’s stage 1 report.

I move amendment 15.

Mike Rumbles

I thank Emma Harper for lodging amendment 15. She is, of course, quite right that the point that it addresses was one of the major issues that the committee was concerned about; I was particularly concerned about it. I had experience of dealing with the same issue as a member of another committee that considered the UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Bill. Ben Macpherson, who was Minister for Europe, Migration and International Development at the time, recognised that the proposed provision was not appropriate. I am very pleased that he has done so again. The committee feels the same way, and so does Emma Harper.

Amendment 15 removes something that I thought was contrary to common law in Scotland. It is important that, when the police are required to search premises, as they have to do, they obtain the appropriate warrant from the appropriate authorities, and that we do not allow the police simply to go on fishing expeditions. I noted from their evidence that the police did not want such a power and that they would hardly ever use it. The problem was that, if it was included in the eventual legislation, it could be used. I am pleased that Emma Harper has recognised that and lodged her amendment, and I fully support her in having done so.

Colin Smyth

Amendment 15, lodged by Emma Harper and supported by me and Mike Rumbles, is important. In its stage 1 report, the committee stated:

“the Committee has very real concerns about the powers proposed in this section of the Bill and questions whether they are legally competent. It is therefore not persuaded that the powers of entry, search and seizure without a warrant are required.”

I am pleased that the member in charge of the bill has listened to those points and concerns, which were raised by a number of stakeholders during our scrutiny of the bill, and that she has lodged amendment 15.

Granting the police a new ability to enter a premises without a warrant is not a decision that should be taken lightly, and it should not be granted without a very clear need for it. The evidence that we received called into question what purpose the powers would serve in practice, and we could not find any real demand for the powers from law enforcement.

In the light of that, I asked for an amendment on the matter to be drawn up by the non-Government bills unit, but I held that back in order to see whether Emma Harper would lodge an amendment to the same effect. I am pleased that she did so, and I am therefore happy to support amendment 15.

Ben Macpherson

After further discussion with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, it seems that the proposed power of entry, search and seizure without a warrant relating to non-domestic premises is unlikely to be required or to be used in practice if the police remain the investigating authority. Therefore, as members have already said, the Scottish Government supports amendment 15 to drop those provisions in view of the concerns that the committee raised.

Emma Harper

I acknowledge the committee’s concerns, especially those that were raised when we took evidence, and I welcome the input from Mike Rumbles and Colin Smyth. The power to enter without a warrant was only for non-domestic premises, but I take on board all the evidence that was presented. During further engagement with the Scottish partnership against rural crime team, I was assured that the power to enter premises without a warrant was not required, so I am happy to press amendment 15.

Amendment 15 agreed to.

Amendments 16 to 21 moved—[Emma Harper]—and agreed to.

The Convener

Amendment 28, in the name of Peter Chapman, is grouped with amendment 29.

Peter Chapman

I will be very brief. Amendment 28 is very clear and simple. It is all about ensuring fairness. In any outbreak, if animals are injured and dying, the first person that the farmer will call is his vet; he may or may not phone the police, but he will certainly phone his vet. Therefore, the farmer’s vet will be on site when the police arrive, and if a dog is being held that needs to be examined, that will be done by the farmer’s vet, because he will be on site and available to do that work. All I want to ensure is that the farmer does not end up picking up the bill for the work of examining the dog. As far as I am aware, nowhere in the bill does it specifically say that the police will pick up the tab and pay for the examination of any dog that might be being held. Amendment 28 makes it absolutely clear that, if the farmer’s vet does the work of examining the dog, that part of the vet’s bill will be picked up by the police and not by the farmer.

Amendment 29 is about making arrangements for any more specialist investigations that might be needed that the local vet perhaps cannot provide, such as taking DNA samples. The vet labs of Scotland’s Rural College are an example of where that kind of specialist work could be undertaken. Amendment 29 tasks the Government with having such specialist work done if necessary.

I move amendment 28.

John Finnie

I speak in support of Mr Chapman’s amendment, which is entirely reasonable. My one caveat relates to what we discussed in our deliberations around the potential for securing the best possible evidence and avoiding cross-contamination of evidence. That does not take away from Mr Chapman’s amendment, which is quite proper, but it perhaps needs to be underwritten by some sort of protocol. Although I am sure that vets would have regard to that anyway, the forensic aspect of acquiring evidence for a criminal case might not be the norm for a farmer’s vet. I am happy to support amendment 29, but I think that it will need to be underpinned by protocols—perhaps between the Crown and the police—regarding the acquisition of evidence and avoiding cross-contamination.

Jamie Halcro Johnston

I support Mr Chapman’s amendments, particularly amendment 28, which is a useful clarification that acknowledges some of the practical implications of the bill and the situations that we might find ourselves in as a result of it.

Ben Macpherson

I thank Peter Chapman for explaining the purpose of amendments 28 and 29. However, I do not agree that they are either necessary or desirable, and I urge him not to press amendment 28 and not to move amendment 29. I will explain why. First, Police Scotland will currently pay for the cost of the veterinary examination of a dog that is suspected of livestock worrying in cases in which Police Scotland considers that that is appropriate to gather evidence for a potential prosecution. We have already supported amendments this morning that will ensure that Police Scotland remains the only investigating body involved, so there is no need to introduce a new requirement in law for Police Scotland to pay for the costs of gathering evidence.

The situation that Mr Chapman described is worth some consideration, though, and I would be happy to work with him, ahead of stage 3, to give him comfort that the situation that he described could be covered in guidance or otherwise. I would welcome such a discussion, were he to withdraw amendment 28. I do not support the amendment and ask that it be withdrawn. Should Mr Chapman press amendment 28, I hope that committee members agree that we should not be making law for the sake of it, especially when there is no deficiency that requires to be remedied. I encourage members to resist amendment 28.

Amendment 29 would place an unnecessary and onerous burden on the Scottish Government to provide additional veterinary services to examine any dog that was suspected of worrying livestock after it had been seized by Police Scotland. As we stated at stage 1, there are various possible scenarios in which it might be appropriate for forensic evidence to be collected from a live suspect dog to link the dog to a particular attack. Such cases are rare, and the need to collect and analyse evidence would be agreed in advance by Police Scotland with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, depending on the potential relevance of that evidence to any possible prosecution case.

If it is appropriate to gather evidence from a live dog, there are different ways of arranging that, depending on the availability of suitably trained persons to handle the dog. That could involve Police Scotland officers, with the assistance of other enforcement authorities, the Scottish SPCA or local veterinary practices, as appropriate for the circumstances at the time.

To require a blanket approach in law whereby the Government would have to provide veterinary surgeons who were able to examine suspect dogs anywhere in Scotland and in all circumstances and cases would be disproportionate, not least in terms of the cost. It would also cut across current practice, in that it is currently quite straightforward for dogs to be presented to local veterinary practitioners for examination at the request of Police Scotland when that is necessary.

As I have just described, a new arrangement for veterinary services and specialist facilities is not required, nor is legislation in that respect. Therefore, I do not support amendment 29 and request that it not be moved. However, should Mr Chapman move it, I encourage members to resist it, for the reasons that I have set out.

Emma Harper

The issue that amendment 28 deals with was raised by Mr Chapman during the stage 1 evidence sessions, in which I referred to an experience that I had of speaking to one local vet, who said that,

“if he was taking evidence for a livestock-worrying case, what he would normally do would be similar to what he does in his usual work—for example, he would take blood, use swabs and give an emetic to the dog.”—[Official Report, Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, 28 October 2020; c 25.]

That would be the usual practice for a vet.

10:30  

My understanding is that, as the police, as the investigating body, would arrange for examination, they would be responsible for paying for the examination in the first instance and would be able to reclaim that cost from someone else, such as the dog’s owner, only if they had statutory authority to do so. On that basis, I do not consider amendment 28 necessary and do not support it.

Amendment 28 would also introduce into the bill a new reference to an “inspecting body”, even though the committee has just agreed to remove the provision that allows inspecting bodies to be appointed.

With regard to amendment 29 and the need for support for examinations, again, it is normal practice for vets to take blood or swabs, and qualified vets are already competent to do so. Therefore, it is unclear what amendment 29 would add; it is also unclear what the “arrangements” that it refers to would consist of or what they would have to include. I agree with the minister’s view that no statutory power for the SRUC or local vets is required in the bill, because they can already be involved in collecting evidence from animals that are presented to them by the police. On that basis, I do not support amendment 29.

The Convener

I ask Peter Chapman to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 28.

Peter Chapman

I welcome the comments from Emma Harper and the minister, as well as John Finnie’s support.

Amendment 28 is a simple and worthwhile amendment, but I accept what the minister has said. I also accept that, as we have just removed reference to other inspecting bodies from the bill, amendment 28 becomes less necessary, given that we have agreed that the police are the body that will prosecute the case. I have more confidence now that other bodies have been taken out of the equation.

I welcome the minister’s offer to discuss the issue further with him and accept his assurance that the police accept that they will have to pick up the tab for that work.

Given all that and the fact that the minister will work with me to ensure that the issue is absolutely clear, maybe we need something in the guidance rather than in the bill. If we can get something in the guidance, which the minister said that he might consider, I would be prepared to withdraw amendment 28.

The Convener

That sounded like a conditional withdrawal. Are you withdrawing amendment 28 or pressing it?

Peter Chapman

I am withdrawing it, given that the minister has said that he is prepared to work with me.

Amendment 28, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

Section 5—Inspecting bodies and inspectors

Amendment 22 moved—[Emma Harper]—and agreed to.

After section 5

Amendment 29 not moved.

Section 6—Definitions

The Convener

Amendment 30, in the name of Jamie Halcro Johnston, is in a group on its own.

Jamie Halcro Johnston

Amendment 30 seeks to clarify that “agricultural land” includes woodland that is used for grazing, and would amend the interpretation provision in section 3(1) of the 1953 act. The definition of “agricultural land” in that act is already broad. However, woodland is increasingly being used for low-density grazing, which would not have been foreseen when the act was drafted.

Forest Research, which operates as part of the Forestry Commission, has noted that

“Cattle are thought to provide biodiversity benefits in woodlands when grazed at low density since they eat dense vegetation of a low digestibility and break up vegetation mats with their hooves.”

It has highlighted that

“Because of these perceived benefits there is increasing interest in the use of cattle as a tool for nature conservation management in woodlands.”

Done well, woodland grazing is something that a range of environmental bodies, including those involved in Scotland’s forests, are working to encourage. Amendment 30 would simply put beyond doubt that “agricultural land” would include that area of increasing interest and provide woodland grazers with the same protections that are available on other types of land.

I hope that members will support my amendment.

I move amendment 30.

Maureen Watt (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

I welcome amendment 30, which is a helpful one. As Jamie Halcro Johnston said, grazing in woodlands is becoming increasingly common. That is because we know that, in many cases, bracken is a nuisance. We are not only talking about cattle grazing in woodlands, as pigs are quite good at turning up the ground in woodlands, as are wild boar and other livestock breeds. As has been said, to increase biodiversity and deliver better use of land, it is important that we agree to this amendment. I hope that everyone will support it.

Ben Macpherson

I welcome this discussion, although the amendment is probably unnecessary, as the definition of “agricultural land” in the 1953 act focuses on the use of the land in question and, if woodland is used for the purpose of grazing animals, it is likely that it would be considered to be grazing land and therefore agricultural land for the purposes of the 1953 act.

However, considering the increase in woodland planting and woodland grazing systems, which are becoming more common in Scotland—that is a good thing—I can see that the amendment might in future be helpful to confirm that woodland that is used for grazing is considered to be agricultural land for the purposes of the legislation that we are discussing today. Therefore, the Scottish Government has no objection to the amendment and welcomes the clarity that it will bring.

Emma Harper

The definition of “agricultural land” in the 1953 act includes grazing land, but what is meant by that is not expanded on. Amendment 30 would ensure that woodland that is used for grazing counts as agricultural land.

I welcome Jamie Halcro Johnston’s comments on the use of agricultural land and Maureen Watt’s comments on bracken, wild boar and pigs. I have no strong views on whether the change is needed but, if the minister and the committee believe that the change would help, I will not oppose the amendment at this stage.

Jamie Halcro Johnston

I am grateful to Maureen Watt, Emma Harper and the minister for their comments and to the minister for the “However” at the end of his comments and the recognition that the amendment provides potential future proofing for the bill. I will press amendment 30.

Amendment 30 agreed to.

Amendments 23 and 24 moved—[Emma Harper]—and agreed to.

The Convener

Amendment 25, in the name of Emma Harper, is in a group on its own.

Emma Harper

With the removal of inspection bodies provisions from the bill, it now contains only one delegated power, which is a power for the Scottish ministers to make regulations to amend the definitions in section 3(1) of the 1953 act. The bill states that such regulations

“are subject to the negative procedure.”

However, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee recommended in its stage 1 report that the affirmative procedure be considered, given that

“The change of a definition could have an impact with regards to whether an offence has been committed”.

That recommendation was supported by the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee in its stage 1 report.

I move amendment 25.

The Convener

As no other member has indicated that they wish to speak to the amendment, we will move straight to the minister.

Ben Macpherson

I thank Emma Harper for lodging amendment 25 and explaining its purpose.

The bill allows for future changes to the definition of “livestock” and, indeed, to all other definitions that are contained in the 1953 act. Amendment 25 will ensure relevant and proportionate parliamentary scrutiny of any changes of definitions by requiring future regulations to follow the affirmative process. That is in line with the recommendations of this committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, and the Scottish Government is happy to accommodate that. I hope that members will support amendment 25.

Emma Harper

I have no further comments to make, and I am happy to press amendment 25.

Amendment 25 agreed to.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

Section 7—Minor and consequential amendments to the 1953 Act

The Convener

Amendment 26, in the name of Emma Harper, is in a group on its own.

Emma Harper

Amendment 26 is a minor, technical drafting amendment to section 7. Currently, the section refers only to section 1; it does not specify the act, which is made clear only in the section title. I understand that it would be normal drafting practice to specify the act in the body of the section as well as in the section title.

I move amendment 26.

The Convener

As no other member has indicated that they wish to speak to the amendment, we will move straight to the minister.

Ben Macpherson

I am happy to support amendment 26.

The Convener

I ask Emma Harper to wind up, if she needs to, and to press or seek to withdraw the amendment.

Emma Harper

There is no need to wind anybody up, convener. I am happy to press amendment 26.

The Convener

I am delighted that you are not going to wind me up.

Amendment 26 agreed to.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

Section 8 agreed to.

Section 9—Commencement

10:45  

Amendment 27 moved—[Emma Harper]—and agreed to.

Section 9, as amended, agreed to.

Section 10 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

The Convener

That ends stage 2 consideration of the bill. The bill will be reprinted as amended at stage 2. I believe that it will be published tomorrow morning. The Parliament has not yet determined when stage 3 will be held. Members will be informed of that in due course along with the deadline for lodging stage 3 amendments. In the meantime, stage 3 amendments can be lodged with the clerks in the legislation team.

I formally thank Emma Harper for her attendance, but she should not disappear. I also thank the minister and Christine Grahame for their attendance. I think that Christine Grahame will now disappear to allow Emma Harper back on to the committee.

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill.

In dealing with the amendments, members should have with them the marshalled list, the bill as amended at stage 2 and the groupings of amendments. I remind members that, if we have a vote, the division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes. Each vote will last for one minute.

Section 6—Definitions

The Presiding Officer

Group 1 is on minor and technical amendments. Amendment 1, in the name of Emma Harper, is grouped with amendments 2 to 4.

Emma Harper (South Scotland) (SNP)

I will be happy to move amendment 1 and speak to all the amendments in the group, which are minor and technical. At stage 2, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee agreed to an amendment that Jamie Halcro Johnston lodged whose aim was to clarify that woodland that is used for grazing was included in the definition of agricultural land. I had no strong views on whether that change was needed but, as the minister and the committee believed that the change would be helpful, I supported the amendment.

Technical issues were subsequently identified with the drafting of Mr Halcro Johnston’s amendment, and amendments 1 and 2 will rectify those deficiencies. There will be no change to the substantive effect of Mr Halcro Johnston’s amendment.

Amendment 3 will remove section 8. Section 129 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 provides a defence for anyone who has killed or injured a dog if that was done to defend livestock from attack by the dog. When the bill was being drafted, we thought that it would be sensible to amend the terminology in section 129 to be in line with the changes that we were to make to the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 and to ensure that the same definition of livestock was used in both acts.

However, it was pointed out to me at a late stage that section 129 of the 1982 act has already been repealed except to the extent that it provides a definition of livestock for the purposes of section 74 of the 1982 act, which allows people who find living creatures other than stray dogs or livestock to keep them if they are unclaimed after two months. As section 129 of the 1982 act is no longer relevant to protecting livestock, there is no need for the bill to amend it. Accordingly, section 8 of the bill can be removed.

Amendment 4 is a minor tidying-up amendment. Section 9 includes section 6(4) in the provisions that are to be commenced the day after royal assent, but section 6(4) merely provides for the parliamentary procedure for regulations that are made under the power that section 6(3) creates, and there is no point in commencing one ahead of the other.

That anomaly came about because, in the bill as introduced, section 6(4) also provided for the parliamentary procedure for regulations to appoint inspecting bodies. Once the power to make such regulations was removed at stage 2, there was no longer any need for early commencement of section 6(4). Amendment 4 will clarify the commencement timing issues.

I move amendment 1.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

I was going to ask Emma Harper for a little more clarification about amendment 3, but she has provided that. I thank her and the minister for their constructive approach to my vital clarification in relation to grazing. We will support all the amendments.

The Minister for Rural Affairs and the Natural Environment (Ben Macpherson)

The Scottish ministers fully support these technical amendments, which will improve the drafting of this important bill.

The Presiding Officer

That was short and sweet. Does Ms Harper wish to add anything to wind up?

Emma Harper

I am happy that the minor and technical amendments will be made and I am happy to proceed.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendment 2 moved—[Emma Harper]—and agreed to.

Section 8—Consequential amendments to the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982

Amendment 3 moved—[Emma Harper]—and agreed to.

Section 9—Commencement

Amendment 4 moved—[Emma Harper]—and agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

That ends consideration of amendments.

As members might be aware, at this point in proceedings, I am required under standing orders to decide whether in my view any provision of the bill relates to a protected subject matter—that is, whether it modifies the electoral system or franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In my view, the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill does no such thing, so it does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3.

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Lewis Macdonald)

The next item of business is a stage 3 debate on motion S5M-24270, in the name of Emma Harper, on the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill.

Members should note that the question on the motion will be taken immediately following the conclusion of the debate.

16:30  

Emma Harper (South Scotland) (SNP)

I am weel chuffed to open the stage 3 debate on my Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. I am pleased that the bill, which I have worked on for more than four years, has had unanimous cross-party support and is the final bill that will be passed during this parliamentary session.

The bill came about because, in my work as a member, I heard about many horrific incidents of dogs attacking sheep and kye. In pursuing those, I discovered that the current legislation, which is now 68 years old, was seriously outdated and needed to be modernised. I also discovered that incidents of livestock attack are underreported by farmers and crofters. Police Scotland said in its evidence to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee that the auld law

“has not kept pace with evolving practices within the farming industry, some terminology is outdated plus it does not provide sufficient deterrent that could influence an owner or person in charge of a dog to act with greater responsibility”.

It is now lambing season. Fields are full of pregnant ewes and new lambs and it is distressing to see photographs of carnage of sheep and lambs killed in attacks by out-of-control dogs. Those tragic incidents dramatically highlight why the bill is needed.

The bill extends the definition of “livestock” to include llamas, alpacas and buffaloes, which were not covered by the 1953 act. It also expands and modernises the definition of “worrying” to include to “chase, attack, and kill.” It also gives additional powers to the police to allow them to seize and detain a dog suspected of livestock attack on agricultural land for the purposes of identifying and securing evidence of the offence. The bill will increase the maximum penalties for that crime, bringing them in line with the animal welfare legislation introduced by the Government last year.

During the progress of the bill, we heard and saw evidence of the devastating financial and emotional impact that incidents of livestock worrying and attack can have on both animals and farmers. Those attacks continue to increase in number, as recent media reports show.

During the Covid lockdown, we have seen how important it is for our physical and mental health to be able to access our wonderful countryside, which more people are doing. I encourage everyone to spend time in nature, enjoying the benefits it gives, and to do so responsibly. I am a dog owner and I get great pleasure from accessing the countryside with my twa dugs.

The bill will make a real difference to farmers and will, I hope, help to educate everyone about the importance of keeping our dogs under control around livestock. I hope to see a year-on-year reduction in incidents of worrying and attack and a rise in responsible access to our stunning countryside.

I thank a number of people and organisations, without whom we would not be here today. I thank the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for their scrutiny, MSP colleagues for their support, and the Scottish Government ministers Mairi Gougeon and Ben Macpherson and their officials. A huge thank you goes to Mary Dinsdale, Nick Hawthorne and Kenny Htet-Khin from the non-Government bills unit, to Charles Livingstone, the bill drafter, and to my office manager, Scott McElvanney, who has supported me from the beginning and who has helped us get to stage 3 today. More thanks will be given in my closing speech because the bill has been a real collaborative effort.

I welcome the cross-party way in which the bill has been taken forward and the suggested changes and amendments from committee members and from the Government. We have a piece of legislation that will really make a difference to farmers across Scotland and will promote responsible access to our braw and bonnie countryside, some of the best of which can be experienced in Galloway.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill be passed.

16:34  

The Minister for Rural Affairs and the Natural Environment (Ben Macpherson)

I am pleased to speak for the Scottish Government in support of this important legislation, which will do much to protect livestock all across Scotland.

I thank Emma Harper, once again, for her constructive and collaborative approach in bringing this bill to Parliament. A member’s bill does not reach this stage without significant commitment and a great deal of effort, and I know how much work Emma has put into the bill, particularly during the consultation stage, to hear from and listen to a wide spectrum of views. Scott in her parliamentary office has been essential to all that work, as have Parliament officials, particularly the Parliament’s non-Government bills unit, and Scottish Government officials, and I pay tribute to my officials for the work that they have done on the bill and more widely.

I also thank the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee for the role it has played in hearing evidence and producing helpful recommendations at stage 1. We considered the recommendations carefully, and they led to the changes that were brought in at stage 2 and a bill that now undoubtedly provides a modernised statutory framework on livestock worrying.

Scottish ministers are keen to emphasise that responsibility for investigating the criminal offence of livestock worrying shall remain solely with the police, with assistance from local authorities or the Scottish SPCA as appropriate in the circumstances.

Throughout the bill process, we have worked with key partners and stakeholders to clarify roles and responsibilities and to increase understanding about what private vets may be asked to do in relation to investigating livestock worrying incidents. As a result, I can advise Parliament that a simple protocol for vets in private practice will be drawn up, and it will be endorsed and publicised by all relevant parties, and made available to police officers.

That protocol will be available before the new powers to have dogs examined are expected to come into force later this year, and will give suitable prominence to the point that Police Scotland, as the investigating authority, will pay for any investigative work that it requests. That should reassure Peter Chapman and others who were interested in that point at stage 2.

There is no doubt that farmers and crofters care deeply about the welfare of their livestock, and the bill will help to ensure that all animals that are commonly farmed in Scotland receive the protection from attack that they deserve.

Some members might have noticed that the Scottish Government and the Scottish SPCA have been running a responsible dog ownership campaign. Although it has not been solely focused on livestock worrying, it emphasises the importance of training pet dogs correctly and reminds dog owners that they have a legal responsibility to ensure that their dog is kept under proper control in order to prevent incidents and reduce the risk of them occurring. The campaign offers dog owners practical tips and advice to ensure that they know the steps to take to prevent their dog from getting out of control and causing harm to others, including livestock.

It will be necessary to halt that campaign as we move into the pre-election period, but I hope that a future Government will consider running it again. Education is key to ending livestock worrying incidents and the associated unnecessary suffering for all concerned.

It is not often that the Government comes to a stage 3 debate with very little to say in amendments, but we had none on the bill. That is a clear signal of the bill’s success. Through members working collaboratively throughout the legislative process, we have a bill before us that is worthy of Emma Harper’s hard work and I hope that members will pass it unanimously.

Indeed, in the circumstances that we are in, I reflect on my first speech in Parliament five years ago, when I stated that we share a

“unifying hope of a better Scotland”—[Official Report, 26 May 2016; c 81.]

across all parties, perspectives and constituencies. I think we would do well to keep that in mind. This bill is a good example of how, when we work together, we can produce effective legislation and make positive change for the common good of all Scotland. I ask members to pass the bill.

16:39  

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests as a partner in a farming business and a member of NFU Scotland.

I am pleased, once again, to have the opportunity to speak on the bill at its final stage, and on one of the final items of business of this parliamentary session. It will, I hope, be the seventh member’s bill to pass at stage 3 in this session, and I again commend Emma Harper for guiding it through the Parliament.

This is one of the bills on which I have had the pleasure to speak at all stages, given that it came before the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee at stage 2. I was even able to add a few words to clarify the bill’s coverage of woodland grazing. The minister graciously remarked that that was both “helpful” and “probably unnecessary”, but I am pleased that that clarity is included—Scotland’s woodland grazers will rest that little bit easier in their forests, orchards and thickets once the bill is passed, as will the many other livestock farmers across our country, who the bill defends.

More seriously, in the two decades of this Parliament, members’ bills have served to get a number of important issues on to the floor of the chamber for debate and, on many occasions, effected significant change.

It is a positive feature of this Parliament that members’ bills arise. As Emma Harper set out, her bill will update legislation on livestock protection drafted in the mid-1950s. It recognises that time and context have moved on.

Although the broad principles were agreed to, this has not been an easy bill. There has been significant amendment, reflecting the findings of the stage 1 report. However, Emma Harper’s positive and consensual approach aided the process considerably.

There are two worthwhile objectives behind the bill. The first is animal welfare. At stage 1, we heard many examples of the injuries and distress that livestock can face from attacks and worrying incidents. Many of us will have direct experience of that, given that a number of farmers are represented in the chamber.

The second objective is to address the economic harm that occurs from damage to livestock. The incidents that the bill sets out to guard against can have considerable costs. We know all too well that farming today often runs on tight margins and that livestock are a valuable asset; and dog attacks can often be very distressing to livestock owners in their own right.

As I mentioned at stage 1, the bill is far from anti-dog. As a big supporter of Holyrood dog of the year, my pro-dog credentials are well known. However, too often, owners are not providing the proper control of dogs in rural areas. In some cases, that is bred by indifference; on other occasions, it is ignorance.

The Dogs Trust, in supporting the bill, has highlighted the many occasions when worrying incidents can take place without the owner present. A dog may have escaped from a garden, or been left out unaccompanied. That is why it is important that information campaigns are run, that school pupils—even in our urban communities—learn the countryside code and that everyone in our rural communities recognises the dangers that can occur. Prevention is key.

Our countryside is the heritage of everyone, and visitors are valued, but it is important that we are all sensitive to the fact that Scotland’s rural areas are not just beauty spots but the workplace for many thousands of people and bring their own risks and dangers. Understanding them, and the people who populate those parts of our country, is vital.

I will not dwell long on today’s amendments. They are largely technical changes that improve the bill and tie up loose ends from the volume of work that was undertaken in committee. However, the bill is much changed as a result of stage 2. The direction that it has taken has narrowed its scope a little but also provided considerable improvement.

The minister’s work to ensure that penalties fitted well into recent reforms to animal legislation was a welcome step. My colleague Peter Chapman, with his considerable experience, lodged important amendments around specialist veterinary care and the allocation of costs, recognising the practicalities around examinations in practice and on the ground. John Finnie made an important point in committee that much of the work will hinge on the protocols and working relationships between farmers, vets, the police and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in relation to evidence recovery. Significantly, Emma Harper’s changes reflected the considered view of the committee and the evidence that it heard.

The bill tackles a perennial issue of complaint in Scotland’s countryside, which can cause considerable harm to livestock and the people who work our land.

I, too, add my thanks to all those who have contributed to improving the bill and supporting its progress, from the people in the sector who provided evidence to our always exceptional committee and legislation teams for their work on pulling together the stage 1 report and stage 2 amendments.

The bill has reached stage 3 thanks to the positive efforts of members from all parties, in the best traditions of this Parliament. I offer again my congratulations to Emma Harper. I am pleased to say that it will have the support of the Conservatives at decision time.

16:44  

Colin Smyth (South Scotland) (Lab)

The bill represents a positive step for Scotland’s agriculture sector and our animal welfare standards, so Scottish Labour is happy to support it. I thank Emma Harper for introducing it.

Although I have now passed the baton of being Scottish Labour’s rural economy spokesperson to my colleague Rhoda Grant, during my time in that position over the past three and half years, and also as a member of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee and a member who represents a large rural region, I have heard all too often about how common livestock worrying is and the devastating welfare, financial and emotional impact that it can have.

NFU Scotland has highlighted a recent survey, which found that 72 per cent of its members had been affected by livestock worrying, and the Scottish Government’s estimates suggest that each incident costs an average of almost £700. Particularly alarming are the concerns, which a number of stakeholders raised, that rates of livestock worrying are on the rise.

It is therefore clear from the evidence that more needs to be done to tackle the scourge of livestock worrying, which will involve making legislative changes. The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 is almost 50 years old and, sadly, like far too much of our animal welfare legislation, is badly in need of updating. The bill will help to deliver that improvement.

However, it is important that we get the legislation right, so I am pleased that, as the bill passed through Parliament, the member in charge, Emma Harper, took on board many of the concerns about the bill that I and other members of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee raised in our stage 1 report. The bill was much improved during stage 2 and, as a result, I am pleased that we have been able to get to a position where it seems that all parties can not only vote for it but do so with confidence that it will help to deliver the robust legal context that is needed.

I hope that the bill will be a first step towards making meaningful progress in reducing the rates of livestock worrying. However, of course, prevention is always better than punishment, and the passing of the bill must be a starting point for consideration of what more needs to be done to tackle the issue more widely. A key aspect of that must be a strong awareness campaign that will communicate not only the specific effects of the new laws but the seriousness of livestock worrying in general, and the practical steps that can be taken to avoid it.

Indeed, in her response to the committee’s stage 1 report, Emma Harper noted:

“in most cases incidents of livestock worrying and attack are likely not premeditated and often lack ... intent to cause harm.”

A number of stakeholders also made that point as the bill made its way through Parliament. The National Dog Warden Association (Scotland) said:

“Most dog owners do not believe their dog is likely to attack sheep and are shocked and distraught after the event.”

Battersea Dogs & Cats Home pointed out that livestock worrying often occurs when the owner is not even present. Changing the law will not tackle that, but raising awareness of livestock worrying and how to prevent it might help.

The laws introduced in the bill and in the 1953 act are undoubtedly needed, but our aim needs to be that they are used as seldom as possible. That will mean having a strong awareness-raising campaign to accompany the bill, and longer-term measures such as consistent education and improved infrastructure and signage. In order to understand the issue and monitor our progress in tackling it, we will also need more information on the scale of the problem.

Dogs Trust has highlighted that issue, pointing out:

“By working to better understand the problem, we believe it will be possible to undertake targeted proactive measures that aim to result in the prevention of worrying, therefore protecting the welfare of livestock more robustly.”

Stakeholders from a range of backgrounds also highlighted how underreporting and inconsistent data collection make it difficult to get a clear idea of just how common the problem is. That will need to be addressed if we are to ensure that the new laws and any related measures are working as intended.

Finally, although I am pleased that this particular issue is now being addressed, I am disappointed that it is not happening as part of a wider review of dog control laws. A comprehensive review of such laws is badly needed and I hope will be progressed in the next parliamentary session.

I am pleased to be voting in favour of the bill. I congratulate Emma Harper on her work in getting it to this point and also everyone who has been involved in developing and improving it throughout the process. That is a welcome change, which has seen cross-party support that will provide farmers and crofters with reassurance that the issue of livestock worrying is being taken seriously by all parties. It is also another small step in progress to improve Scotland’s animal welfare regime. However, there is still an awful lot more to do.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Mike Rumbles, who will be making his final speech in the Parliament.

16:49  

Mike Rumbles (North East Scotland) (LD)

I, too, congratulate Emma Harper on introducing the bill. It will be good to get it passed before the session ends. It will be at the last minute, but that will still be good.

My one major concern about the bill has been addressed. It centred on the initial intention to give the police the power to search non-domestic premises without a warrant. That was the second time in this parliamentary session that that idea had appeared in legislation; the first time was in the Government’s UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Bill. I thank in particular the minister, Ben Macpherson, for looking at that in this second bill. Thankfully, on both occasions it was recognised that the provision would have overridden historical safeguards in our common law that were designed to protect people by not allowing authorities to search people’s property without first obtaining evidence of a crime. Thank goodness that common sense prevailed, but it shows that vigilance is always required from MSPs when they examine legislation from the Government, from committees or from individual MSPs.

Presiding Officer, if you will indulge me for a moment, considering that this is my last speech in Parliament, I will make a general comment on the work of MSPs. Since I was first elected some 22 years ago, I have seen a marked change in, if I may say so, the independence of mind of my MSP colleagues—across the board; I am not leaving anybody out—when it comes to voting in the Scottish Parliament. We have collectively become far more tribal and more “My party, right or wrong”. I would urge those colleagues who are returned at the election to consider this. It is fine when the following three elements are aligned—your own values and beliefs, the interests of your constituents, and your party’s leadership decisions. Unfortunately, in politics, those do not always neatly align.

For me, the most important of those three elements is remaining true to the values and beliefs that brought you to Parliament in the first place, especially when considering which way to vote at decision time and it is everybody’s decision. The one example that I will give of what I mean is when we had the vote on closing our churches during the pandemic. Today’s judgment from Lord Braid ruled that the move was unconstitutional, disproportionate, and consequently unlawful, yet how many colleagues voted against their better judgment? Only five of us voted against our own parties’ position on it, and every party’s decision was to support the Government’s position on closing down the churches. Therefore, my message to returning MSPs is simply this: value your own judgment, and always do what you believe is the right thing.

Presiding Officer, you can see why my party leaders over the years—Jim Wallace, Nicol Stephen, Tavish Scott and now Willie Rennie—have not had an easy time from me. I thank them for their forbearance. On that point, I end my 17 years of contributions to parliamentary debate.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you, Mr Rumbles. I call John Finnie, who is also making his final speech in Parliament.

16:52  

John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)

Like others before me, I would like to thank everyone who has brought us to this point in the bill, and to congratulate Emma Harper, who has worked extremely hard over four years, as we have heard. Success will arrive in a very short time—the bill will achieve the success that it deserves.

Within the past fortnight, in Sutherland, just north of me here, there was a serious incident in which five sheep were killed and other beasts traumatised, as would be the owners, the neighbours and the police who are investigating the incident. As a young police officer in the 1980s, I was called to a scene of carnage, in which many sheep were killed and numerous others were injured and required to be humanely destroyed. At the request of the dogs’ owners—good folk, whom I knew—I assisted the good vet, whom I knew, to put down dogs that I knew, so I am acutely aware of the wider implications of an incident like that in a rural community.

As has been said, legislation on its own will not stop livestock worrying, but this enhanced legislation, which includes new protection for my dear friends the camelids—I am a big alpaca fan—is needed and will help. Education is the key, so I welcome the recent Scottish Government social media campaign that the minister alluded to. This is entirely about responsible ownership. Scottish Greens will support the bill at decision time tonight.

I hope that the Presiding Officer will indulge me, as she did Mr Rumbles before me. Tha mi às na Cluainean, baile beag snog air taobh Loch Lòchaidh faisg air a’ Ghearsdan. For that reason, it has been a real honour to represent the Highlands and Islands in the Parliament. I thank the constituents for the privilege to do so.

The day after I was elected in 2011, I arrived at the Parliament building for the very first time with my former colleague Dave Thompson MSP. We were greeted with a smile by the security officer and we immediately met Paul Grice, the chief executive, and had a blether. From that day to this, that is the way that engagement has been with the parliamentary staff. I take this opportunity to thank the present chief executive, David McGill, and each and every one of the parliamentary staff for their courtesy and assistance, and likewise the Scottish Government officials.

I have enjoyed my parliamentary work and particularly helping constituents. To that end, I could not have been better served than by Linda Wilson in my constituency office throughout both sessions. Linda’s courteous and engaging manner has been invaluable in our helping countless constituents, and she can be very proud of the support that she has given the communities of the Highlands and Islands. Thanks, too, to past employees Richard, Pauline and Gary, and to Kevin and more recently Liam, both real wordsmiths, who have been of great help to me.

My long-suffering office manager, Steven Dehn, has been with me since the start in 2011 and has tirelessly kept me on course with all things parliamentary. Steven was pivotal in the progression of the Children (Equal Protection from Assault) (Scotland) Bill into law and we are both very proud of being part of the big team behind the bill. I value my staff and will be for ever in their debt.

I value our Parliament, too. In the relatively short time for which it has been in place, it has brought great progress to our country. I always want to be forward looking and positive. However, I must say that I have been dismayed and indeed angered by those, particularly of late, who have sought to undermine our Parliament and our institutions for their own shabby ends.

Fortunately, session 5 of the Parliament will be remembered not for their wrecking crew’s activities but for progressive legislation such as the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018, the Redress for Survivors (Historical Child Abuse in Care) (Scotland) Bill, the Period Products (Free Provision) (Scotland) Act 2021 and many other pieces of legislation including—dare I say it?—my bill that became the Children (Equal Protection from Assault) (Scotland) Act 2019, without which the historic United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill would not have been possible.

Soon, I hope, our Parliament will have to raise its horizons even further, our magnificent chamber resonating to new voices and wider issues, with debates about Scotland’s foreign policy, Scotland’s defence policy and all the powers that are in the meantime held elsewhere. I believe that it is a matter of when, rather than if, Scotland takes its place at the United Nations as an independent nation and rejoins our European friends.

Like many, I have spent the past year working entirely from home. I thank my wife of 45 years, Bernadette, for her endless support and forbearance. Perhaps there will be one final debrief for her after today’s events, following which I promise that there will be no more running commentaries on the political business of the day.

In a year like no other, I thank all those who have helped our communities in whatever capacity, and I pay tribute to the Presiding Officer, Ken Macintosh; the Deputy Presiding Officers; the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport, Jeane Freeman; and our First Minister for their leadership.

I thank my dear Green colleagues and our super Green staff. Indeed, I thank colleagues across the chamber, past and present, for their camaraderie. I wish those who are standing down healthy and less-demanding days ahead. New members are coming, and I am delighted that our Parliament will welcome more women. I hope that my successor as lead candidate, the talented Ariane Burgess, my dear friend Gillian Mackay, and indeed my daughter Ruth Maguire, of whom I am very proud, will be among that growing number.

However, no matter how the next Parliament is configured, I wish everyone well in discharging their sworn duty of public service. Presiding Officer, one last time, mòran taing a-h-uile duine agus tioraidh.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Mòran taing, Maighstir Finnie.

We move to the open debate. I ask for three-minute speeches, please.

16:58  

Christine Grahame (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)

I can see people around the chamber timing me before I even start. [Laughter.] I wish John Finnie and Mike Rumbles well, and I particularly thank the cabinet secretary, Roseanna Cunningham. I believe that this will be her final speech. A few of the ’99ers are left. I am struggling on and I hope to be returned. They will need to shoot me like an old horse. [Laughter.]

Anyway, I am pleased to speak in this debate on Emma Harper’s bill, not only as convener of the cross-party group on animal welfare but as someone whose constituency straddles farms in Midlothian and the Borders, and as a colleague who substituted for Emma Harper on the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee during the evidence sessions. I commend Edward Mountain for trying to chair me. It is a difficult job.

I also speak as someone who has introduced members’ bills in previous sessions, sometimes with success, such as with the bill that became the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010. Therefore, I know how tough it is for a member to get this far and how long it takes, even with the excellent expertise of the non-Government bills unit. The fact that Emma Harper has, I think, been progressing her bill since 2017 shows that it is a very long gestation.

The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill addresses the horrendous issue of the worrying and savaging of farmed livestock by unattended or out-of-control dogs. Worrying carries a high welfare risk for livestock, and there are fatalities. The impact on farmers is not only financial, in the form of veterinary costs and the cost of replacing lost animals; perhaps the most significant effect is the emotional impact of having to deal with half-dead and mutilated dying animals.

The dog is not to blame, and the majority of dog owners walk their animals responsibly in all environments. A farm is a working environment. As usual, it is the minority—either through ignorance or wilfully—who let their dogs run wild. The proposed increase in the penalty available to a maximum fine of £40,000 and/or up to 12 months’ imprisonment is long overdue. Indeed, with the upsurge in dog ownership during Covid, the bill could not be timelier. Its penalties are important, and I hope that, as well as reflecting the culpability of the dog owner, they will act as a deterrent. The bill should be a vehicle to educate dog owners on their responsibilities in the working countryside.

I have two asks of the Scottish Government in the event that the bill is passed, as I hope it will be, at decision time: first, that the bill receives from the Government the publicity that it gives to its own bills—I have been banging on about that for years; secondly, that we at last have a national database that is linked to the existing microchip data on Scotland’s dog population, which brings together dog control notices and offences under the bill. In that way, serial offending owners will not be able to dodge being identified.

Finally, I offer many congratulations to my colleague Emma Harper on what I hope will be a well-earned success at decision time.

I have five seconds left, Presiding Officer.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That was a very timely contribution.

17:02  

Claudia Beamish (South Scotland) (Lab)

I have been frantically trying to cut my speech from four to three minutes, Presiding Officer; I will do my best.

I thank Emma Harper for introducing the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. What a lot of work for all involved! I am keenly aware of how necessary the bill is. Much of the South Scotland area that I and Emma Harper represent is rural, so the worrying of livestock by dogs is an issue that is regularly raised by many constituents, especially those who are members of the farming community.

I regularly meet the NFUS, and the issue is never far from the agenda. Jen Craig, who is the chair of the National Sheep Association Scotland and the NFUS Clydesdale branch, farms in my region and has expressed real concern about the situation. She said:

“Dog worrying and attacks on livestock is a problem that is becoming more frequent and in many cases more severe. Not only are the livestock suffering but so are the farmers and stocksmen and women who care for them and have to witness these incidents.”

She added that it is not the dog’s fault—I completely agree with that—and went on to say:

“It’s the 5 second decision that the owner makes to not put their dog on a lead that can lead to these horrific incidents.”

Tom French, a former chair of the NFUS in my region of Forth and Clyde, who is a good friend and a farmer in Crawfordjohn, told me:

“very often the distress caused to the animals themselves, as they are chased can be overlooked, and not appreciated or even recognised by those whom the dogs are supposed to be under the control of.”

He has also heard of people who think that their dog is just “having fun” as an attack is under way. He added that such behaviour is irresponsible and is one of the reasons that some farmers are understandably cautious and worried about the anticipated increase in the number of members of the public who will take access in the future.

However, the benefits to wellbeing that the outdoors brings should be encouraged, and I fully support the work of organisations such as Paths for All and Healthy Valleys in Clydesdale, which runs successful dementia walks in my area. Those organisations provide wonderful opportunities for people to experience the pleasures that walks can bring, and the people who go on those walks often take their well-behaved pets with them—they are very welcome.

I am proud of Scottish Labour’s introduction of the bill that became the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, which gave people the statutory right to roam, but that right comes with public responsibility. If Emma Harper’s bill is passed, as I am sure it will be, it will serve as a tangible reminder of that responsibility to all concerned.

17:04  

Clare Adamson (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)

On their final day, I offer congratulations to all members who are leaving and to Mike Rumbles and John Finnie in particular for their contributions. I offer a special thanks to the Lanarkshire lassies. In 2011, I joined a very elite group that included Linda Fabiani, Christina McKelvie, Aileen McLeod and Aileen Campbell—formidable women, one and all. They have been my mentors, friends and support, and I wish Ms Campbell and Ms Fabiani the very best for the future.

I move from the Lanarkshire lassies to our Galloway lass, Emma Harper. I congratulate her on the bill’s progress, which demonstrates the commitment to animal welfare that she has shown throughout her time in the Parliament. There was a timely reminder today of the important work that she has done in conjunction with the SSPCA after another family was left devastated by a pup dying within six days of being purchased from a puppy farm. I note that the SSPCA has been involved with work on the bill from the start. That has been a great partnership, which Ms Harper established. I thank the SSPCA for its contribution to the bill.

I thank Mr Macpherson for his comments about dog ownership. Owning a dog is a wonderful experience—it is one of the most wonderful things that a family can do—but it comes with the huge responsibility of ensuring that our dogs are under control at all times. I have been struck many times by the number of people I know who are surprised by their dog’s behaviour. We have to educate people about that. Dogs are animals and they have an instinct when they engage with wildlife, whether that is in our countryside or gardens or even on our shorelines—I note the recent attack on a seal, which the dog owner did not expect to happen. That is why education is key, and I thank charities such as the SSPCA, the Dogs Trust and Battersea Dogs & Cats Home for the support that they give dog owners.

I thank Mr Halcro Johnston for noting that we live in a shared environment: what is, for some, a walkway for an afternoon stroll may be owned by a commercial organisation, and those spaces have to be respected.

It is important to note that the bill covers all our livestock, including llamas, sheep and alpacas, which Ms Harper mentioned earlier. I will finish by saying that if my good friend and colleague Rob Gibson was still an MSP, I am sure that he would say that it even extends to the buffalo on the farm in Achiltibuie.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

John Scott will make a brief contribution before we move to closing speeches.

17:08  

John Scott (Ayr) (Con)

Thank you for your indulgence, Presiding Officer. I have very little to say except to welcome the passage of the bill and declare an interest—[Interruption.] I thank the cabinet secretary for her sedentary intervention.

I declare an interest as a sheep farmer and I give a heartfelt welcome to Emma Harper’s bill, having twice had my in-lamb ewes worried by dogs. There is no worse sight than ewes with their throats ripped open and stomachs burst and dead lambs lying around. Owners of dogs do not appear to care or understand the damage that they have done, not just to the dead and dying animals but to the whole of the surviving flock, leading to subsequent abortions and hypoglycaemic ewes.

I am delighted that the bill has been introduced by Emma Harper and I wish it every success.

17:09  

Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)

Like others, I congratulate Emma Harper on introducing the bill. I pay tribute to Mike Rumbles and John Finnie on their final speeches, and to you, Presiding Officer, as this is also your last meeting in the Parliament.

I am really pleased that Emma Harper introduced the bill. Even this short debate has shown the devastation that can be caused by dogs chasing animals such as sheep. Pregnant ewes can abort their lambs, as Emma Harper said.

Livestock worrying is absolutely distressing to animals. Claudia Beamish talked about owners thinking that their dogs are just having fun—that it is just what dogs do. However, the livestock are being absolutely terrorised. If the owner saw another animal terrorising their dog, they would see the distress that can be caused. There is no hierarchy of animals.

Dogs can kill sheep, as John Scott said. He painted a very vivid picture of what a farmer or crofter sees during sheep worrying incidents. It is devastating and absolutely heart-breaking, because such incidents involve somebody’s animals—animals that they have cared for. It can also be costly, with people losing a huge amount of money.

Colin Smyth told us that most dog owners do not know that their dogs are likely to attack sheep. They are quite often shocked and disturbed by that, and they cannot understand how their dogs will react in such situations. As Clare Adamson said, some dogs have a built-in instinct to immediately start chasing sheep when they see them, which can lead to animals being bitten and killed.

Claudia Beamish highlighted that a lot more people are going out into the country, which means that sheep worrying is becoming a lot more common. As Colin Smyth mentioned, the NFUS said that 72 per cent of their members—a huge number of farmers—are affected by sheep worrying. The NFUS also said that the average cost is £700. If we add up each incident, we can see that it comes to a huge sum of money—money that is lost not just to individuals, but to the rural economy.

I support what Colin Smyth said about data. We will not be able to see how the bill is working unless we gather the data about the incidents that occur and how they are dealt with.

Many members spoke about the important issue of awareness raising. The Government has said that it is taking that on and is making good investment in it, and that needs to continue. We need to make sure that people understand how their dogs will react in such situations. There needs to be education for those using the countryside, to make sure that they keep their dogs on a lead while out in the fields. Those fields might seem just to be wide open spaces in which their dogs can run, but people need to be very careful about what is being farmed in them. Fields can also be dangerous for dogs: cattle can turn on dogs and their owners, which can be absolutely terrifying not only for the dog but for the owner. People could be putting their own lives in danger.

I welcome Police Scotland having the role of policing livestock worrying. It should not be down to individual farmers.

I very much welcome the bill. I pay tribute to Emma Harper. I know that it is not easy to introduce a member’s bill—it takes a lot of hard work, so I say well done. The bill will make a difference.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Peter Chapman, who is also making his final speech.

17:13  

Peter Chapman (North East Scotland) (Con)

Let me remind the chamber for the last time that my entry in the register of interests states that I am a member of a farming partnership. As you say, Presiding Officer, it is the last time that I need to say that because, as most folks know, I am standing down from Parliament. As such, I beg some latitude from you, Presiding Officer, for my closing remarks, and maybe a wee bit more time.

I must address Emma Harper’s Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. Of course, I welcome the bill and the extra protection that it gives our farmers from attacks on their livestock by out-of-control dogs. Emma deserves a great deal of credit for successfully driving the bill to completion before recess, and I have no doubt that it will become law at decision time. Normally I would say much more, but as the bill has cross-party support and this is my final speech, I would like to cover some other issues that are important to me.

It is important that I say thank you to the many folk who have supported me in the past five years. My loyal staff here and in my Aberdeen office have been tremendous, and so have all the people who are sometimes forgotten but make such a difference to our lives and our ability to do our jobs. I am talking about the folks in the Scottish Parliament information centre, our committee clerks and their teams, the information technology support staff, the security staff, the canteen workers, and the people in human resources and allowances. The list goes on. They all, without fail, do their jobs professionally, politely and with a smile. They are a great bunch of people, and they should be proud of their dedication to doing their best.

I wish that I could be equally complimentary about other people and other things that go on in the Parliament. Of course I cannot, because there is something sinister and worrying going on that is undermining the very credibility of the Parliament. It is, unfortunately, being perpetrated by the Scottish National Party—the very party that likes to tell us that we should respect Parliament.

We have a First Minister who is determined to hang on to power and whom we know has misled Parliament. If she had a shred of self-awareness or honour, she would already have resigned, but she will not. [Interruption.] Our first First Minister, Donald Dewar, was a truly honourable man—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I will stop you, Mr Chapman. There is a little disorder in the chamber. I encourage you to confine your remarks to the usual finishing remarks in a final speech.

Peter Chapman

I hear what you say, Presiding Officer, but—as I said—some of these issues are, to my mind, very important, so I wish to make the points, as I have stated I would.

Donald Dewar must be turning in his grave seeing the damage that the Administration has done to the integrity and standing of our Parliament. The Parliament was launched with such high expectations that we would do politics better. The Sturgeon-Salmond scandal has discredited our Parliament and highlighted a fatal weakness in our ability to hold the party in power to account. We have seen the SNP Administration wilfully ignore a series of votes that it has lost and wilfully ignore requests for information that was promised by our First Minister to the investigating committee at the outset.

Democracy is a fragile flower. Without proper scrutiny and the ability to hold a Government to account, our democracy is at risk.

The Administration is mired in scandal and failure on many fronts. No issue is more serious than the decline in our education system. Our education system was once the envy of the world. After 14 years of SNP rule, it is but a shadow of its former self. Nicola Sturgeon has said on many occasions that we should judge her on education. We have, and she has failed miserably.

On a lighter note, one of the maist memorable speeches I hiv delivered in the last five years was the ane I did in my ain north-east tongue—the Doric. Fin I pit it on the Facebook, it wint viral, an I hiv hid aboot twa hunner an sivinty thoosan hits fae aa ower the world. At jist gings tae show hoo important the Scots language is tae sae mony folk an foo important it is tae wir heritage an wir culture.

I wid love tae see wir Scots language pit on an equal fittin wi Gaelic an get the same level o support an fundin as Gaelic gets. In my mind, it is jist as important. It wid be great if the mony fantastic poems written in the Doric, for instance, cwid be taught in schools, bit thankfully wir Doric winna be forgotten fin I leave becis Mark Findlater is fechtin the Banff an Buchan seat instead o me, an he is a native spicker an jist as passionate aboot it as I am.

In conclusion, I have had only five years in my role as an MSP. It has been a great experience, and I have made many new friends but, frankly, I leave disillusioned with what the Parliament has become, and concerned about the future of my country.

Another five years of an SNP Administration with an overall majority, and without the ability to hold it to account, fills me with dread. Another divisive independence referendum is the last thing that this country needs just now, and I passionately hope that we can prevent that from happening. I promise that I will be doing my bit up to election day to return as many Conservative MSPs as possible, because a balanced Parliament will be a better Parliament.

17:20  

The Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform (Roseanna Cunningham)

On the last day of the current parliamentary session, it seems fitting that we are considering a member’s bill that has strong cross-party support and addresses a matter that is of serious concern to everyone who has an interest in animal welfare. I warmly congratulate my colleague Emma Harper on her successful initiative.

Improving the lives of Scotland’s animals is something to which I am strongly committed. Despite having to deal with the extreme pressures of European Union exit and the Covid pandemic, this Government has still been able to deliver many groundbreaking and innovative improvements in that area. Therefore, I am happy to commend the bill to members.

This will be my last speech in the chamber—well, my last in my elected capacity. This time comes to us all, sometimes without warning, so I count myself lucky to have been able to make the decision to retire at a time of my choosing.

I confess to the occasional bewildering thought about how it all came to this. In 1967, as a 15-year-old living in Australia, I wrote to the SNP after the Hamilton by-election, and the party wrote back. I still have the package of booklets and leaflets, although they are a little out of date now. Approximately five minutes later—or so it seems—I am standing here making a valedictory speech in a Scottish Parliament. It has been the most extraordinary experience, a great privilege and, of course, a matter of some pride. Only the achievement of independence itself will top that for me.

I say this in the spirit in which I hoped all valedictory speeches would have been made. Not everyone knows about it, but in the early years of the Parliament, there was an informal cross-party back-bench dining group. In those years, some enduring friendships emerged, including my friendship with John Scott. John was an active diner and will remember the great fun we had. The ease with which he and I have been able to negotiate our way through some tricky policy issues in the intervening years is, I suspect, a consequence of that early period.

Tavish Scott, who left us during the session, was also an enthusiastic diner. When Liam McArthur was elected, Tavish pulled him into the same relationship—usually assisted by prosecco, it has to be said—although Liam’s cross-chamber texts are not quite as wicked as Tavish’s were.

I have to apologise to Anas Sarwar. Pre-lockdown, I said that I would make him a rhubarb and ginger cake, which I have singularly failed to deliver, thereby allowing him to say with authority that nationalists do not keep their promises.

There are many others whom I could have named—members who were here in the early years and who have left before now. However, I hope that the point that I am making is clear: the capacity to forge relationships in this place should not be confined to party groups.

I give huge thanks to all the people who have worked for me over the years, up to and including my current constituency staff—Emma, Carroll, Sheena and, of course, Calum, who has been with me from the very start. I also thank all the officials and staff, both parliamentary and Government, who have supported me, including innumerable members of my various private offices over the past 12 years.

I give a special shout out to all the wonderful Government car drivers, who provide ministers with mobile offices and/or decompression chambers on a regular basis.

Most of all, I give my thanks and abiding love to all my amazing SNP colleagues throughout those years—everyone from the best First Minister that Scotland has ever had, whom I first met when she was 17 years old, to all the newer members who came in after 2016.

However, I have special words for my very good and long-time pal John Swinney, who cannot be in the chamber today. He was 19 when I first met him. We have been the Perthshire double act for so long that it seems strange to bring it to a close. I make the point that Perthshire is the most beautiful part of Scotland. I sneaked into the House of Commons a few years before John, and I am sneaking out of the Scottish Parliament some years before him, too. He has been a friend and, often, a confidant for decades, throughout which we have fought for, and continue to fight for, independence for Scotland. That is what motivated the 15-year-old me, and it motivates me still.

I believe that I am right in saying that I am currently the longest-serving parliamentary representative in Scotland. As I leave, I pass the baton to John, and I wish him so well in the next years of his career.

With that, Presiding Officer, I bid the chamber farewell. [Applause.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Emma Harper to respond to the debate and to wind up.

17:26  

Emma Harper

In closing, I have additional people to thank. More than 600 people responded to my consultation in full, and I appreciate the time and input from members of the public. Many organisations have been involved, as well, including the National Sheep Association in Scotland. Claudia Beamish mentioned Jen Craig, who has been helpful in giving evidence to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, as well as away from the committee—as has the previous chair of the association, John Fyall. Those organisations also include NFU Scotland, the Scottish SPCA, The Scottish Farmer, Scottish Land & Estates, NatureScot, the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, the Dogs Trust, OneKind, the Scottish Outdoor Access Network, the Kennel Club, Blue Cross and many others.

I give special thanks to Inspector Alan Dron, who is the national rural crime co-ordinator, and his team, which includes Willie Johnstone, Allan McKean fae Dumfries, and Constable John Cowan from Police Scotland in Dumfries and Galloway. The support from the Scottish partnership against rural crime has been phenomenal, and its knowledge and input have been gratefully received.

I welcome what the minister, Ben Macpherson, said during the debate as he announced a modernised statutory framework for livestock worrying and a simple protocol that will support veterinarians in their work.

I agree with Colin Smyth that prevention and education are key—as with the Government’s responsible owner advice that I have been seeing on the internet in the past few days. We know that increasing awareness is needed to accompany the bill. However, Police Scotland has said that the current law does not provide sufficient deterrent that could influence an owner to act with greater responsibility. Christine Grahame said that nobody takes their dog out with an intent to attack sheep, alpacas, llamas, buffalo or whatever livestock is in our Scottish fields these days. I thank everyone who spoke in the debate.

I appreciated Jamie Halcro Johnston’s amendment at stage 2; we just needed to tweak it a wee bit today.

Clare Adamson also spoke in the debate, as did Mike Rumbles and John Finnie—both of whom I wish well for the future, as those were their last contributions.

Work will continue. We know that the Scottish partnership against rural crime is continuing to engage and that Scotland’s Rural College has sheep fitbit technology that can alert farmers when livestock are disturbed. It disnae just stop here.

I welcome the fact that Roseanna Cunningham has closed the debate on behalf of the Government with her valedictory speech. Again, I am chuffed that that was about my bill.

Gail Ross (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)

Will the member take an intervention?

Emma Harper

Of course I will.

Gail Ross

It would be remiss of me not to personally thank Emma Harper for all the hard work that she has put into the bill. It is a fitting end to our parliamentary session, and I have been privileged to work with her on it. I thank her on behalf of people such as Joyce Campbell, Sally Crowe and all my constituents in Caithness, Sutherland and Ross.

Emma Harper

I thank Gail Ross for that. It is very fitting that she mentions Sally Crowe and Joyce Campbell. I know that they will be keen to hear that we are—as I hope—passing this bill tonight.

Again, I thank everyone who has contributed to this updated legislation to support oor farmers—including Joyce, Sally and other farmers in Dumfries and Galloway—and crofters, to protect livestock and to support responsible access to oor bonnie countryside when folk are oot wi their dogs.

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

We will move to the vote on the bill. Before that, however, I suspend the meeting for a technical break to allow members to access the voting app.

17:31 Meeting suspended.  

17:35 On resuming—  

The Presiding Officer

We will go straight to the vote. The question is, that motion S5M-24270, in the name of Emma Harper, on the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, be agreed to. Members may cast their votes now. This will be a one-minute division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Reform)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the vote is: For 120, Against 0, Abstentions 0.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees that the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill be passed.

The Presiding Officer

As the motion has been agreed to, the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill is passed. [Applause.]

I hand the chair to my Deputy Presiding Officer, Linda Fabiani, for the next item.