Chamber and committees

Can I make a point of order on amendment 171, for the record? I know that you cannot change the result of the vote, but I would have abstained.

Amendment 172 moved—[Jim Fairlie].

Will you take an intervention?

Will you take the intervention?

I just want to get your thoughts on the points that were raised last week about rough shooting. You have said that working dogs could be used as a cover for other activities. How, in your belief, could a working gun dog be confused for a lurcher or a hound?

My amendments in this group aim to address potential problems with the existing wording, which leaves it unclear what amounts to taking “reasonable steps” to use the method that causes an animal “the minimum possible suffering”. As the bill is drafted, it could be argued that only the method that causes “the minimum possible suffering” can be deployed, regardless of circumstances. It needs to be made clear that causing “the minimum possible suffering” in the context in which the person is operating constitutes taking “reasonable steps”. The expression “as humanely as possible” is widely used in wildlife and welfare legislation and understood by the courts.

Alternatively, the addition of “in the circumstances” would make it clear that the method of minimum suffering will vary depending on the circumstances, even if there was a method that could objectively be said to cause less suffering but was not possible in the circumstances. It also avoids the argument as to which method is the one that causes the minimum suffering possible. Clearly, the sooner an injured animal is dispatched, the better, but would the person who dispatches it immediately using a knife be using the method causing “the minimum possible suffering”, or would they have had to take “reasonable steps” to obtain a firearm if that could be argued to be a method that caused less suffering?

It might be argued that the existing wording could be construed as recognising that the way of killing an injured animal that causes minimum suffering is relative to circumstances and what is possible but, for the avoidance of doubt, the bill would benefit from an amendment to give a greater degree of certainty to people operating under the legislation and to avoid any vexatious allegations.

Amendments 36 to 39 would allow the person using the dogs to exercise their judgment over how many dogs would be appropriate to cause “the minimum possible suffering”, as they would be best positioned to make that judgment.

Those amendments aim to alleviate suffering for animals, as many others have aimed to do. I urge members to vote for them with that in mind.

Amendment 243 would extend the period of time in which a 14-day licence could be used from 14 days to six months from the date on which the licence was granted. I listened to the minister’s comments on my previous amendments in relation to the extension of the duration of time in which a 14-day licence could be used, and the amendment reflects some of the comments that were made and revises the period down from 12 months to six months.

To reiterate what I said previously about extending the period of time in which a licence can be used, it is important to acknowledge that the control of wild mammals is preventative and not simply a reactive method or a response to damage having been suffered. We must recognise that fox control is a year-round activity and that it is conducted using a variety of methods depending on factors such as the terrain and the time of year. Farming is not simply a hobby; it is a business that manages land and produces food. Much has been made of allowing businesses to carry out their role without overly bureaucratic diktat from pen pushers, ensuring that they can operate in as practical a way as possible.

I move amendment 243.

As it stands, I believe that the bill limits the environmental benefit exception to situations in which the use of dogs—whether two dogs or more than two dogs under licence—is “part of a scheme”. It seems unnecessarily burdensome, given that land managers often undertake pest control to protect and enhance wildlife. I have no idea why they should have to come up with a scheme. The bill does not define what amounts to a scheme; it is not clear from the evidence sessions or from the documents accompanying the bill, but a scheme is currently conceived of in terms of the work of NatureScot, RSPB Scotland and other large bodies.

I am still concerned about the idea of a scheme. Most managers have a land management plan—is that a scheme? If they wish to use more than two dogs, what amounts to such a scheme? In terms of a licence for environmental benefit, surely it is sufficient that NatureScot should be happy that the use of more than two dogs is necessary and will make a significant contribution to environmental benefit.

With regard to the loss of biodiversity, it is strange that we would want anyone to discourage wildlife management that assists in nature recovery or to limit it to statutory bodies and charities when the vast majority of land is held and managed privately. If ministers are serious about reversing biodiversity loss and saving species such as the curlew and capercaillie, we must work with land managers, not against them, to ensure that, in such situations, livelihoods are protected and wildlife is managed in order to protect livestock.

I press amendment 243.

There is a very good reason why Christine Grahame is not here to speak to her amendment, but I would have liked to hear what she had to say.

As she is not here, I will say that my amendment 174A would amend Christine Grahame’s amendment on the laying of a scent. The inclusion of the world “reckless” in amendment 174 is excessively restrictive and unhelpful. It would adversely affect any type of hunting a scent, so much so that it might not be legally possibly to lay a scent for dogs to follow with every confidence that they would not stray off that scent. The term “reckless” could easily be used and abused by anti-hunting or anti-shooting organisations. If the term were removed, I would be happy to support the rest of Christine Grahame’s amendment, but she is not here to answer to that, which is slightly unfortunate.

Amendments 237 and 238 address trail hunting in the bill more broadly. I struggle to find any examples in the history of legislation where it was proposed that a lawful activity should be banned on the basis that it might be used as a cover for any unlawful activity. Those amendments reflect that and amendment 237 would remove the provision for an outright ban on trail hunting. Section 12 would, therefore, not be necessary, so amendment 238 would remove it.

It is surprising that the penalty for an offence under part 2 of the bill will be set at the same level as that for the most serious welfare and wildlife crime offences. That seems disproportionate and fails to recognise the fundamental difference in the gravity of the offences.

Amendments 239 to 241 seek to address the Law Society of Scotland’s concerns with regard to the provisions allowing ministers to amend the legislation or any enactment in the future, subject to a positive resolution from the Parliament. It is felt that these powers are too extensive and, on the requirement for the affirmative procedure to be used, there is no substitute for the full debate and scrutiny that primary legislation receives. In its evidence to the committee, the Law Society of Scotland told us that, at the very least, there should be some requirement for consultation, and it was felt that concerns about the extent of the ministerial powers that were being sought were not properly reflected in the committee’s stage 1 report. My amendments therefore seek to remove these ministerial powers to allow for proper debate of any further amendments to the legislation.

I move amendment 239.

Just for the record, when the minister talks about the evidence, is she referring to Detective Sergeant Telford’s opinion or other evidence from Police Scotland?