Seòmar agus comataidhean

I do not support amendment 23, which would commit the Scottish Government to providing, on the basis of geographical area, direct financial assistance to improve the security of kennels where working gun dogs are kept.

The targeting of financial assistance would be informed by research carried out by the Scottish Government into areas where working gun dogs are at greatest risk of being stolen. In my view, that is an entirely inappropriate use of public funds. It is for those who own working dogs—and all of us who own dogs—to ensure that the security for their resources is adequate, in the same way as any other organisation does.

There is also a significant risk that funding such a scheme or, indeed, even the research could become a perverse incentive not to ensure adequate security if it is seen as a way of having security paid for by the taxpayer, particularly if it is supposed to be based on where risk is greatest, because the risk would be greatest where there is least security.

For those reasons, I ask members to reject the amendment.

As I made clear during the stage 1 debate, the Scottish Government supports the creation of the aggravated offence for the theft of assistance dogs. Having listened to MSPs during the debate, the Scottish Government also supports extending the aggravated offence to cover other categories of dogs that might not naturally be called “assistance dogs”.

To go back to Ariane Burgess’s point, a research paper from the SSPCA that was given to the committee during stage 1 highlighted the complexities of the definition. That is why we will engage with the expert working group, as I will come on to explain, so that the experts can define what a working dog is. If the bill is passed at stage 3, the Scottish Government will engage with all its justice partners to ensure that implementation is straightforward.

Absolutely. Anybody may get in touch with Mr Golden before stage 3, and we will work with him if he wants to lodge anything at stage 3. We are aware of the complexity of the definition, and we are putting the expert working group in place to determine what it should be.

The group met only last month for the first time. As the bill passes through the Parliament, the group will be taking all these issues on board. I am sure that it will listen to and take on board all the issues that are raised today.

When it comes to this group of amendments, the choice for members is straightforward: to support either Maurice Golden’s amendment, which will remove the ministerial duty under section 5 to review the act, or Rachael Hamilton’s amendments, which would add to the matters that the Scottish Government’s review under section 5 would have to address. I encourage members to support Mr Golden’s amendment.

The Government’s position on reviewing the act is that any such review is best undertaken by the Parliament, not the Government, and that it is up to the Parliament and relevant committees to do that scrutiny as they see fit. I urge the committee to support Mr Golden’s amendment and to reject Ms Hamilton’s amendments.

I also place on record the fact that I am keen to work with Ms Hamilton as we move to stage 3. However, the bill is not mine but Mr Golden’s, so I encourage her also to engage with him.

I do not know whether Ms Hamilton is aware that, last year, Jim Fairlie and I held a summit on dog legislation and dog welfare, as a result of which an expert advisory group was set up. The group has made quite a lot of progress, and I updated the committee on that at stage 1. Given some of the concerns that were raised at stage 1 about working dogs in general, not just gun dogs, one of Mr Golden’s amendments is for the Government to get the experts in the advisory group work to define “working dog”. That is why I cannot support amendment 19 at this stage.

The expert advisory group is also looking at welfare and a range of other issues. I could go into them, but perhaps it would be better if I wrote to advise Ms Hamilton of all the work that is being done in the background, which she might not be aware of.

The issue of disabled access to child contact centres was raised during the passage of the Children (Scotland) Act 2020, which was prior to our time in the Parliament. That led to the bill being amended to provide that the body appointed to oversee regulation would have a function to report any failures relating to the duties under the 2010 act. The intention was to ensure compliance with those existing duties.

As I said, we are now proposing that the Care Inspectorate takes on the notification role. The EHRC, not the Care Inspectorate, is the appropriate body to enforce the equality duties. The regulations will just make it clear that the Care Inspectorate would notify the EHRC so that it could take further action.

I am personally not aware of any, but my officials who have been dealing with this matter might be.

Yes—enforcement would not be up to the Care Inspectorate.

It could become more common. However, it is simply a notification of non-compliance. As I say, it is not up to the Care Inspectorate to rectify things; its role here is simply to notify the EHRC.

One of the issues that was raised is whether additional burdens will be placed on child contact centre providers. All service providers are required to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010, so those should already be in place. What we are looking to do is to notify and underline an issue.

I do not think that I can speculate on what that might mean when taking forward future legislation. I do not know whether any of my officials has any other intelligence to share on that.