Chamber and committees

Do you want to direct your question to someone? Pick on someone first.

We have certainly been taking evidence to a great extent on the national care service, but it is good to hear those perspectives.

Does anybody have any experience of that? I see that we have lost Shaun Macaulay, who might have been able to answer that question more fully.

My amendment 14 removes the exception that would allow the use of up to two dogs as part of falconry, game shooting and deer stalking. I thank Colin Smyth for supporting it.

Falconry, game shooting and deer stalking are legal in Scotland, but that does not justify the use of dogs when that has such impact on animal welfare that the Scottish Government is introducing legislation to make it, by and large, an offence. Why should there be an exception from that offence for sport, of all purposes? I support the Scottish SPCA’s calls for a complete ban on the use of dogs in sport, which would require removing section 6. Further, we cannot allow that exception to be another loophole for fox hunts, as in England, where hunts have been known to carry birds of prey as a token presence to circumvent the two-dog limit there.

I urge committee members to consider every amendment from that point of view. Could it be used as a loophole? If falconry, game shooting and deer stalking for sport must persist, those activities should have to be done without the use of dogs.

Amendments 2, 4, 6 and 8 are consequential on amendment 14. They would simply remove all references to section 6 from sections 1 and 2, which define the offences under the bill.

Colin Smyth’s amendment 123 would remove falconry for sport but not game shooting or deer stalking from the field sports exception. I support the amendment and urge members to vote for it in case my amendment 14 is disagreed to. I also support Colin Smyth’s amendment 146, which would remove the restrictive definition of “game shooting” from section 6 and would mean that using dogs while shooting game birds would be subject to the same conditions.

I will not support Rachael Hamilton’s amendments 132 to 139, 227, 228, 142 and 143. I urge the committee to support amendments 2, 4, 6 8 and 14, and Colin Smyth’s amendments 123 and 146, and to vote against Rachael Hamilton’s amendments.

I move amendment 2.

I thank Colin Smyth, Rachael Hamilton and Edward Mountain for lodging and speaking to their amendments in this group. We are legislating for a future Scotland and, as we must respond appropriately and urgently to the climate and nature emergency, it will be a very different Scotland. Rural Scotland and its economy and practices must change.

Colin Smyth’s amendments would result in greater protection for wild mammals, which is the key purpose of the bill, so I will support them. However, in order to afford wild mammals even greater protection, we should remove the relevant section completely, so I urge members to also vote for my amendments in the group.

Again, I cannot support Edward Mountain’s or Rachael Hamilton’s amendments in this group, as the majority of them serve to weaken protection for wild mammals and loosen that loophole.

I will speak to Liam Kerr’s amendment 131. I understand that the thinking behind the amendment is to avoid criminalising people who are genuinely walking their dogs and have lost control of them. However, as drafted, the amendment would make conviction for genuine offences even more difficult. The Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals says that the amendment would create an obvious loophole, because every poacher could claim that their poaching was not the intended use of the dog.

The end of section 1 already makes clear what is required regarding the control of dogs. Rather than create clarity, amendment 131 would give offenders yet another excuse that they could hide behind. Even the Law Society of Scotland acknowledged in oral evidence in June 2022 that that can be used as a loophole. Police Scotland explained in written evidence that hare coursers will often claim that they let their dog off the leash for exercise or to go to the toilet and that it chased a hare of its own free will. We cannot afford to open another loophole, or the bill will soon consist of more loopholes than legislation, when it is attempting to close down loopholes from 2022. I urge members to vote against amendment 131.

Edward Mountain’s amendments in the group, which propose the removal of protection for rabbits, weasels, stoats, mink, polecats and ferrets, would make it permissible to hunt those creatures with dogs. During stage 1 evidence, we heard from Chief Superintendent Flynn that the suffering of all animals that are attacked by a dog will be the same. They are sentient beings, so they will suffer. All animals deserve our respect and humane control methods. I cannot support the amendments.

Rabbits are specifically covered by amendments 58 to 62. The committee has considered the matter at length and I am satisfied with the evidence. We have heard that rabbits should be defined as wild mammals in the legislation in order to prevent the creation of a loophole for hare coursing and for the welfare reasons that I have just outlined.

I will not take an intervention.

I think that the imperative is to ensure that the legislation, when it is passed, does not allow exceptions to become loopholes, which would undermine our intention to uphold animal welfare standards. For those reasons, I will not support amendments 58 to 62.

I will pick up on the point about mink. The mink projects in Scotland do not use dogs, and the mink population should be controlled under the environmental benefit exception.

I am just winding up.

I will press amendment 1.

I will speak about rough shooting in a moment. We have just had the UK Climate Change Committee’s report, which calls on us to make changes. Over the coming months, we as a committee, and the Parliament, will be looking at various issues and bills, and we should bear in mind that we will need to radically change what we do. When we legislate today for provisions that are going to be used in future, we need to think about why we are doing so. There are pressures that we perceive now, but there will be different pressures in the future. As we are involved in making legislation, we have the challenge of working today to address something that is going to have to change radically.

I am concerned, in particular, about Rachael Hamilton’s amendment on rough shooting, and I thank the minister for her clarifications in that area. In written evidence, Police Scotland stated:

“Although most individuals would respect this law, this aspect of the bill provides a platform to conduct illegal hunting utilising packs of dogs.”

The SSPCA made a similar point, stating:

“as soon as it becomes a loophole, those who are not law abiding will use it as an excuse, which will tarnish everybody who does it lawfully.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, 23 November 2022; c 30.]