Chamber and committees

The committee has heard and read evidence from several witnesses who do not agree that there is a need for a licensing scheme and are concerned that it will leave loopholes for traditional fox hunting to continue.

If there is to be a licensing scheme, do you believe that it would benefit from incorporating some of the principles that were set out in Alison Johnstone’s proposed member’s bill from the previous parliamentary session on protecting Scotland’s wild mammals? It proposed that there should be no negative impact on the local or national conservation status of the species in question, that licences should be issued where there is a risk that dependent young will suffer and that licences must be conditional on reporting the number of animals that have been killed or hunted for publication by the licensing authority. Has the Scottish Government considered those or other licensing principles that were suggested in my former colleague’s proposed member’s bill?

What I am hearing in your response is that there will be scope during the bill process.

As has already been noted, several stakeholders, including the League Against Cruel Sports and OneKind, are concerned that the exceptions and licences in the bill will leave loopholes allowing practices that are cruel to animals to continue, as happened with the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. In order to reassure stakeholders and the 87 per cent of the public who are in favour of a watertight ban on traditional fox hunting, are you confident that no licences will be granted to any of the 10 mounted hunts in Scotland that currently hunt with dogs two to four times a week for five or six months of the year?

Context matters, whether for enforcement or in relation to the bill as a whole. The UK Climate Change Committee has called for a 20 to 50 per cent cut in the number of sheep and cattle to help to combat climate change. Over the evidence sessions that we have had, it has grown on me that we are talking as if things are going to stay the same. However, if we are really going to respond to the nature and climate emergencies, the way in which we farm will change and the way in which we manage our land will need to change. Did you give any consideration to that as you drafted the bill?

They are absolutely connected. One of the problems of this committee is the need to recognise that they are connected.

In a previous evidence session, Robbie Kernahan from NatureScot made the point that when there are too many exceptions, they become unexceptional.

Some stakeholders, including the League Against Cruel Sports and Scottish Badgers, are concerned that the bill may be in danger of having too many exceptions to enable it to fulfil the Scottish Government’s original intentions. What are your thoughts on that, minister?

The second item on the agenda is consideration of the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2022. This is a negative instrument, and there is no requirement for the committee to make any recommendations on it.

Do members have any comments on the instrument?

Nobody has any comments to make. Is the committee agreed that it does not wish to make any recommendations in relation to the instrument?

Members indicated agreement.

Good morning and welcome to the 21st meeting in 2022 of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee. We have received apologies from Mark Griffin. I ask all members to ensure that their mobile phones are on silent, and that all other notifications are turned off during the meeting. Marie McNair and Annie Wells join us online.

The first item on our agenda is a decision on whether to take items 3, 4 and 5 in private. Item 3 is an opportunity for us to consider our approach to our report on the allotments inquiry. Item 4 is a chance to consider correspondence from the Scottish Government on national planning framework 4. Item 5 is an opportunity for the committee to consider its approach on pre-budget scrutiny. Do members agree to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

As that was the final public item on our agenda, I close the public part of the meeting.

I will pick up on what Professor Griggs said about science. You say in your review:

“Those using science must ensure that they have the most current, effective and relevant scientific evidence to defend their arguments against any negative issues raised”—

Good morning. I am sorry that I cannot be there in person today. I appreciate your coming to the committee to add your perspectives on the bill.

I want to pick up on a statement in the written evidence from the National Working Terrier Federation, which I raised with Barrie Wade from that organisation a couple of weeks ago. Its evidence states that

“It is commonplace on a shoot day to use more than 2 dogs while flushing game from cover ... We do not believe that the intention of the Bill is to restrict, control or interfere with normal shooting practices”.

However, the bill does restrict the number of dogs to two for game shooting and to one for flushing game. When I questioned Barrie on that, he admitted that

“you might be using three spaniels to flush ground game. If part of that ground game is rabbits, and if rabbits are part of the act, you are committing an offence.”—[Official Report, 8 June 2022; c 4.]

I want to ask Michael Clancy and Sara Shaw whether they believe that the bill as worded will restrict normal shooting practices so that flushing to guns by using more than two dogs—whether you are flushing rabbits, foxes or other wild mammals—will be a prosecutable offence.