Chamber and committees

I have real problems with that. Across the country, there are rough shoots which, at the moment, are perfectly legal. There might be half a dozen people with two or three Labradors that will flush pheasants. However, there are also rabbits, and the intention is to flush, which is defined as hunting in the bill. If a fox or rabbit is flushed, and that fox or rabbit is shot, or the dogs continue to flush, there is a problem, and that has a potential impact on rough shooting. Last week, Police Scotland said:

“That is a difficult one. That is where intent would come into it, and it might be difficult to differentiate. That opportunity is always going to be there, if dogs are flushing game legally but encounter a mammal and chase it. That risk is there. I do not know whether that is necessarily addressed by the bill.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, 22 June 2022; c 14.]

That is my concern. At the weekends, it is probably very common for there to be rough shoots in mixed gorse, where there will be pheasants but also rabbits. If there are three dogs in the gorse bushes, people could say that they do not intend that their dogs will chase rabbits, but they will flush them, and that is hunting. Where in the bill would that point be clarified? Police Scotland and, if I remember rightly, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service had issues about how that would be determined.

In effect, that means that mixed shoots will become illegal, despite the fact that there is no evidence to suggest that any animal welfare issues relate to them.

Thank you for that helpful clarification.

I will bring in Ariane Burgess—

Jim Fairlie has a brief question.

Just ask your first question, for now. Thank you.

That issue will come up in later questions.

We touched on the definition of hunting. The bill says that hunting includes “searching for and coursing”, and then, in brackets, it says:

“and related expressions are to be construed accordingly”.

Does not that allow a huge amount of uncertainty about what the definition might be, and how would that be interpreted in law?

Okay. Thanks very much.

The Law Society raised a concern, so it must be more than just a general provision. It considers that there is a need for subsequent guidance and prosecution policy. Will that be forthcoming?

Thank you very much. We have about 90 minutes for questions. My first question was going to be about the bill’s overall purpose, but you have covered most of that in your opening statement.

Is the bill a sledgehammer to crack a nut? Given that you have said that the vast majority of fox control is not with dogs, what level of deliberate or unintentional law breaking is there under the existing legislation? Taking that into consideration, is the new bill not based on the principle of evidence, and is it more to do with prejudice and stopping mounted packs?