Chamber and committees

My amendments 9 to 12 and 14 to 18 seek to remove the provision for licences permitting the use of more than two dogs in any circumstances and would remove all references to the licensing scheme. My amendments 19 and 20 are consequential and would remove further sections on the licensing schemes.

Licensing the use of two dogs does not align with the aim of pursuing the highest possible animal welfare standards. Foxes that are hunted by packs of dogs are not killed quickly but endure enormous physical and psychological suffering before death, which can involve being torn limb from limb by dogs. The committee heard that around 40 per cent of foxes hunted with packs of dogs are killed by the dogs.

The licensing scheme would be the biggest loophole for those who enjoy hunting wild mammals with packs. Eighty-seven per cent of the Scottish public want a watertight ban on fox hunting with packs. Let us deliver that, not perpetuate the current situation in which conviction is, to use Police Scotland’s word, “impossible”. Bringing in a strict limit of two dogs without a licensing scheme to allow the use of more would make enforcement of the law much more straightforward.

I urge members to support the amendments in my name.

No, fox hunting is not banned. That is part of the reason why the bill has been introduced. The 2002 act had loopholes in it. The committee has discussed that and you have brought up issues about rough shooting. We are introducing legislation on hunting with dogs to be very clear about what can and cannot be done. In this case, licensing will allow people to find ways around the measures to stop hunting.

On other amendments in the group, I support Christine Grahame’s amendments 156 and 159, which would remove the option to grant a licence to a whole “category of persons” to avoid the issuing of a blanket licence that is not strictly necessary for everyone who receives it. I also support her amendment 161, which would require NatureScot to keep a publicly available register of licences, as that would increase transparency and accountability. However, it would better achieve the purposes of the bill to remove the licensing scheme altogether.

I support Colin Smyth’s amendments 116 and 130, which specify that a licence holder must adhere to a set of standards based on

“ethical principles for humane wildlife management”.

I would like to work with Colin Smyth, the Government and other parties before stage 3 to refine that idea and ensure that it is workable in practice.

I also support Jim Fairlie’s amendments 157, 160, 172 and 173, which add that any licence must require the use of the minimum number of guns that NatureScot believes would be effective for killing the wild mammal as soon as possible after it is located or flushed. However, I have concerns about encouraging the greater use of guns in any circumstance, so I would be interested in working with him at stage 3 to add appropriate safeguards to those conditions.

Edward Mountain’s amendment 105 simply seeks to change the reference to “Scottish Natural Heritage” to one to “NatureScot”. I will leave it to the minister to advise on whether that is appropriate.

There are other amendments in the group that I cannot support, but I will not list them all. The minister’s amendment 158 would allow the 14 days for a licence under section 4 to be spread over six consecutive months. I do not support that amendment. If the purpose of the licence is to enable effective wildlife control, spreading out the days when more than two dogs can be used will undermine that purpose. RSPB Scotland knows that you need a period of consecutive days—or, more importantly, nights—when trying to protect other animals from foxes, for example. Having one day here and there to hunt foxes with several dogs would not be effective for achieving that purpose. You need to deal with the problem when it arises, not on separate days spaced out over six months or a year.

I urge the committee to support amendments 9 to 12 and 14 to 18. I encourage it to support Christine Grahame’s amendments 156, 159 and 161, Colin Smyth’s amendments 116 and 130 and Jim Fairlie’s amendments 157, 160, 172 and 173. I will decide how to vote on Rachael Hamilton’s amendments 205 and 232 and Edward Mountain’s amendment 105 after I have heard from them. I ask the committee to vote against all other amendments in the group.

I move amendment 9.

I will continue.

That is even more likely to happen because Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 142, which creates the exception, does not place a limit on the number of dogs, as the other exceptions do. Rachael Hamilton questioned how rough shooting does not comply with the highest possible standards of animal welfare. It is because killing animals for sport is not necessary or justified, so it would not align with the ethical principles for wildlife control.

I will respond to Edward Mountain’s point that falconry and deer stalking are not always done for sport. I accept that, but section 6 seeks to legislate specifically on deer stalking and falconry for sport. His examples would be governed under section 7, which is the section on environmental benefit.

I ask members to consider whether we are legislating for the Scotland of the past, the Scotland of today or the Scotland of the future. Do we want to be a country where we prioritise the entertainment of humans who enjoy hunting over the very life of sentient wild mammals?

I press amendment 2.

I thank Jenni Minto, Colin Smyth, Rachael Hamilton and Edward Mountain for lodging amendments in the group. As I explained, I support Jenni Minto’s and Colin Smyth’s amendments, which would serve to improve animal welfare. However, to achieve the highest possible standards of animal welfare, we would need to remove section 5 completely, so I urge members to vote for my amendments in the group.

I cannot support Edward Mountain’s or Rachael Hamilton’s amendments in the group, the majority of which serve to expand the exception and loosen the loophole. The exceptions to the bill should be as few as possible and as narrowly defined as possible to avoid loopholes and situations in which wild animals might suffer.

The minister raised concerns that no other, more humane methods have been put to her. I am aware of the concerns that removing the exception for foxes could lead to an increase in other cruel practices that were mentioned, such as snaring, blocking up of holes or even poisoning. However, we should not be afraid to legislate against cruel practices for fear of other cruel practices being used. We should legislate against all of those cruel practices, ensure that the legislation is enforced and support land managers to adopt more ethical practices that are also more effective for the long term.

For example, the RSPB does not use dogs to flush foxes, and nor does it use snaring. Instead, it uses trained marksmen to shoot foxes, on the ground that it is the most humane and efficient method of necessary fox control. That is why the bill should encourage the use of wildlife management methods that align with the seven principles of ethical wildlife control. I will look to ensure that an amendment on that is lodged at stage 3.

I thank the minister, and I thank other members for lodging amendments in the group. I appreciated hearing their perspectives. To clarify, my amendments are not wrecking amendments; rather, they are intended to legislate for the highest possible standard of animal welfare in a modern Scotland.

I agree with Christine Grahame’s comments about having a public register of licence holders. The intention would not be to victimise them; it would be to ensure accountability and responsibility. A public register of licence holders was one of the recommendations made during consultation on the member’s bill on protecting Scotland’s wild mammals, which was introduced by Alison Johnstone in the previous session, and I fully support that.

The minister raised the need for farmers to protect their livestock, and I fully understand and sympathise with farmers’ need to minimise the loss of lambs and other livestock, but the bill will not prevent farmers from taking action to control animals that are predating on their livestock or crops. It even allows lethal control. However, the bill puts humane conditions on how that is done, to ensure the least suffering by the smallest number of animals.

I agree with Colin Smyth that we need to rethink the false assumption that killing wild animals is the best way to protect livestock, and I welcome his comments about the ethical principles. I fully support the idea that, if the licence scheme is to be retained in the bill, the licence conditions should be aligned as closely as possible with the best practice of ethical wildlife management, such as the international consensus principles of ethical wildlife control or RSPB Scotland’s vertebrate control policy.

However, Colin Smyth’s amendments 116 and 130 are not specific enough and refer to

“a set of standards based on ethical principles”.

The committee heard NatureScot trying to reassure us that its shared approach to wildlife management is already

“fairly well aligned with the ethical principles”,—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, 22 June 2022; c 24.]

so it could simply require licence holders to align with its existing approach. NatureScot’s shared approach is supported by pro-hunting organisations including the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the Scottish Countryside Alliance, the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust in Scotland and Scottish Land & Estates. That implies that the shared approach would perpetuate the status quo rather than encourage behaviour change and increase protection for wildlife.

I will support Colin Smyth’s amendments at this stage, but I would like to work with him, with Government or with other parties before stage 3 to amend this area of the bill further to require closer alignment with actual best practice in ethical wildlife control while ensuring that that requirement is workable in practice and can align with the outcome of the species licensing review, as the minister has mentioned.

I will press amendment 9.

No, I will continue.

The SSPCA and the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission gave evidence about the distress that is suffered by hunted rabbits. I understand the concerns that have been raised about the impact on rough shooting, whereby multiple dogs are used to flush quarry species. We have taken additional evidence on the bill’s impacts on that activity. I note that both Police Scotland and the League Against Cruel Sports highlighted the risk that including an exception for rabbits could create a smokescreen for illegal hunts with packs of dogs under the guise of rough shooting.

I was making a point about mink.

As I said in my statement, rabbits are sentient beings and I think that they should be protected. We took a great deal of evidence on that during our committee hearings.

Mink is the link.

I will speak first to my amendment 13, which seeks to remove section 5, which is on the exception that allows one dog to be used for the

“management of foxes and mink below ground”.

I thank Colin Smyth for supporting the amendment.

Our committee received evidence from the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals on the consequences of sending dogs underground to flush foxes, which included pictures that show dogs and foxes with horrific injuries and disfigured faces, and written evidence about wild animals

“screaming in terror and pain as they were torn apart by dogs”.

How is that compatible with the bill’s pursuit of the highest standards of animal welfare? Dog fighting is illegal in Scotland, so it should be illegal to send a dog underground where there is suspected to be a fox.

My amendments 1, 3, 5 and 7 are consequential to amendment 13. They would simply remove all references to section 5 from sections 1 and 2.

Jenni Minto’s amendments in the group seek to remove mink from the exception, which would mean that it would be an offence to use a dog below ground to search for or flush mink. I will support her amendments 162 to 167, but I urge the committee to also vote for my amendment 13, which would remove the need for those amendments.

Colin Smyth’s amendment 117 stipulates that a fox or a mink that is brought or chased up from below ground by a dog must be shot immediately rather than killed in another way. I will support that amendment.

I will not support Edward Mountain’s amendments 73 to 76 and 81 to 96, or Rachael Hamilton’s amendments 212, 214, 216, 221, 222 and 225. Edward Mountain’s amendments seek to add four other wild animals to the list of animals that can be legally hunted by sending a dog below ground.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 220 specifies that

“a wild mammal which is being searched for or flushed is flushed as soon as reasonably possible after it is located”.

However, that could be used as a justification for using more than two dogs to flush the animal more quickly.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 224 would require, among other things, reasonable steps to be taken to prevent injury to the dog that is used underground. I am concerned that its provisions could be used as an excuse to send two dogs underground so that they could flush the fox more quickly.

Accordingly, I urge the committee to support amendments 1, 3, 5, 7 and 13. I also ask the committee to support the amendments of Jenni Minto and Colin Smyth, but to vote against the other amendments in the group.

I move amendment 1.