Sketch: Jim Fairlie takes part in some horse play

Jim Fairlie is here to talk about ass welfare. He wants every ass to, at the very least, have a life worth living. At best, he would like every ass to have a good life. That’s according to the new guidance around ass welfare, which the government published in August. And now he’s in front of the Rural Affairs Committee to convince them what the best standards are when caring for an ass.

Get your mind out of the gutter. The agriculture minister is of course talking about the new guidance on the welfare of equids. In addition to donkeys, it covers horses and hybrids. The “comprehensive” new guidance is designed to replace the 2009 code of practice, he explains, and he would like MSPs to agree to revoke the old rules to “avoid confusion”. Neigh worries.

The updated guidance was necessary, Fairlie goes on, because “animal welfare knowledge” and “science” have “moved on considerably” in the last 17 years. The new best practice has been “shaped by expertise that did not exist” in 2009. And the government really does not want to be caught horsing around on this topic.

Fairlie wants to “ensure they experience a good life, worth living, at every stage”. Which seems like a nice sentiment. But, he adds, the contents of the guidance are “advisory in nature” and not a legal requirement for those who care for Scotland’s gee-gees. Because we wouldn’t want anyone to actually have to pony up for such demands.

Committee convener Mark Ruskell thanks the government’s mane man for animals for his opening statement. But, he adds, a detailed policy statement provided in advance might have been “more helpful”. Hold your horses, Ruskell, that almost felt like a lick of a whip. We can’t have the Greens riding the SNP too hard on anything.

Tory MSP Finlay Carson, however, has no problem with that. He plans to stirrup some trouble. Could the minister, he asks in his sweetest voice, point to an example where horse welfare would be better protected by this new guidance instead of the code of practice?

Fairlie says that neither have legal effect, so really they are the same. It’s good to be stable.

Carson is not content with the answer. He tries again: why this guidance rather than a code of practice? “Why would the horses be better protected,” he inquires.

“Neither the code nor the guidance are legal requirements so the position is exactly the same,” repeats horse whisperer Fairlie. Getting straight answers from the government is, as usual, proving to be a mare.

Carson, exasperated but refusing to foal-d, says: “I kinda get that.” He’ll at least make it look like he’s being collegiate while jockeying for control of the conversation. “But the point of the question is, why move away from a code of practice which this parliament gets an opportunity to scrutinise?” There is also, he continues, “no indication of whether those looking after horses and donkeys or whatever ever responded to this”. No one consulted Dr Dolittle!

Fairlie finally understands the point of the question which Carson has been dancing around like he’s doing dressage. The guidance, he says, allows for more “flexibility” and “nimbleness” than the code of practice did. That means any future changes can be put in place quicker. He has outflanked his political opponent on that. Giddy-up ya, Carson.

And regarding the point about consultation, he insists there is “nothing being hidden here”. Which is of course what someone hiding something would say.

But Lib Dem MSP Andrew Baxter – who begins his questioning by suggesting he’s a little bridled that Carson robbed his lines – argues it is “somewhat unusual” that the committee has heard nothing from horse people. “That either means that the sector is completely satisfied or that there is a lack of knowledge of this new guidance amongst the public,” he says. And of course, the latter option is a worry because everyone needs to know how to better take care of their asses unless that horse has already bolted.

But he is told by one of Fairlie’s officials that the equine sector is “fully aware” of the change. The subtext is clear: rein in your criticism.

Ruskell wraps up the session by acknowledging the minister had written to the committee to apologise for the lateness at which the guidance was sent. Fairlie had apparently blamed this on “administrative difficulties”. The convener invites the minister to “gently reflect on those administrative challenges” to ensure the committee and government can work together going forward. Got to make hay while the sun shines, after all.

“I have gently asked that the administrative error does not happen again,” replies Fairlie. Eek. That’s code for the minister having a bit of a barn-y at a civil servant over the matter. Canter imagine it was fun to be saddled with the minister’s ire.