Hansard

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.