Finance Committee, 12 Jun 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 12, 2001

Official Report 94KB pdf

---

Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill

At this point, I must hand over the chair to the deputy convener, because I have a personal connection with the next item to be discussed.

I thank Mike Watson. This is the committee's first consideration of the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill. It is an opportunity for us to raise issues that relate to the financial memorandum. As Mike Watson is the author of the bill, I am sure that he will be able to address some of the issues that members might want to raise. Depending on how the discussion goes this morning, we will have an opportunity on 19 June to deal with further outstanding issues.

On a technical point of order, I appreciate Mike Watson's position in respect of the bill, but is he permitted to sit in on the discussion as a member of the committee?

The answer to that will be yes, because the committee clerk will have checked the position.

I am simply making sure that that is the case, as otherwise our handling of the matter could be challenged.

I will ask the clerk for clarification.

As the member in charge of the bill, Mr Watson is the appropriate person to sit in on the consideration of the bill. However, consideration of any report that the committee might produce for the Parliament would be undertaken by all the committee's members except Mr Watson.

Thank you. I simply wanted to clarify the situation.

Although the subject is highly contentious, unless I have missed something, the finance aspect is not contentious and does not seem to be an issue. I am content to approve the financial aspects of the bill and to leave the politics of the issue for another day.

The financial memorandum seems to be comprehensive.

I would like advice on the effect that the bill would have on the economy, because that does not seem to be covered. A number of factual—not political—comments have been made about the effect of the bill on the Borders' economy. Figures of about £4 million per annum have been put into the press and have been talked about by many people.

That is not the subject of a financial memorandum, is it?

Does not the financial memorandum have an effect on all aspects of life? There is nothing in the paperwork that we have in front of us this morning to show the knock-on effect of the bill. We are not talking about market forces, because those do not apply. There is also nothing in the financial memorandum about compensation. That issue could possibly be raised through the European convention on human rights. Can we have advice as to whether the ECHR would apply in this case?

I understand that the Rural Affairs Committee undertook a comprehensive inquiry on the bill. We could ask for further written clarification on the points that David Davidson has raised. We are to consider the financial memorandum that sets out the cost implications of the bill, and we should stay within that remit. I will ask the clerk to advise us from whom we should seek further clarification of those matters, if that was required.

It would be up to the member in charge of the bill to try to illustrate those matters.

To be fair to David Davidson's point, the extent of the impact of those costs should be detailed under the section that is headed "COSTS ON OTHER BODIES, INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES". The only way that the bill can impact on our overall budget is through a loss of business rate or non-domestic rate income or, indirectly, through taxation contributions to Westminster. However, all those are probably of the second or third order. It is not usual to put that sort of information into a financial memorandum.

I am inclined to agree with Andrew Wilson. Does Mike Watson want to make any comments at this point?

I am happy to comment briefly. As the deputy convener said, if the committee so wishes, there will be a further opportunity next week to consider the bill. At that point, more information may be available.

When my bill was being drafted, the issue of compensation was examined by the legal people who were supporting me and, as I understand it, by lawyers from the Scottish Executive. Their conclusion was that compensation would not be appropriate. I am aware that any legal opinion is, by its very definition, open to challenge. However, that was the position as it was presented to me at the time that the bill was introduced.

It is probably fair to say that there is conflicting evidence on the economic effects of the bill. As the deputy convener said, the Macaulay Land Use Research Institute conducted a survey that satisfied neither side of the debate. One side thought that the survey overestimated the effects of the bill, while the other side thought that it underestimated them.

That suggests that the results were not far short of the mark. However, there have been other reports and no definitive figures are available on the matter. As the memorandum suggests, it all depends on how people who are currently involved in hunting react to a ban. It is impossible to be precise about the point that David Davidson raises.

The licensing scheme that is set out in section 2 of the bill is highlighted as being the primary cost that will be associated with the bill, should it be enacted. However, as long ago as April last year I indicated to the then Rural Affairs Committee that it was my intention at stage 2 to introduce an amendment seeking to delete that section. I am aware that the Finance Committee, like all other committees, must deal with the bill as it stands, but I have made it clear that should the bill reach stage 2, I intend to lodge an amendment that would remove the licensing scheme from the bill.

Thank you, Mike. Your comments have been of assistance.

Paragraph 59 on page 10 of the explanatory notes states that when hunts decide to stop hunting,

"there will be balancing savings (and possibly a net saving overall) from cessation of the operating costs of the hunt."

I would like further clarification of that.

Currently, drag hunting takes place in some parts of England, but not in Scotland. It could serve as an alternative to hunting, but some hunts would find it more attractive than others would. I am not absolutely clear about how a net saving would be achieved if a hunt ceased operating. There might be a saving in police costs or other costs that arise from the organisation of hunts.

Redundancy arrangements for employees will depend on the extent to which hunts are willing to adapt and on the extent to which people who breed horses that are used in hunts are prepared to use those horses for other purposes.

I was not involved in producing the financial memorandum. The statement that Adam Ingram quoted is the opinion of those who put together that memorandum. It is not clear to me how a net saving could result from hunts stopping hunting.

Same here.

Paragraph 61 on page 11 states:

"It is envisaged that the voluntary sector will take responsibility for the welfare and disposal of dogs".

That could mean the putting down of 60,000 dogs, which has substantial cost implications. The memorandum does not make that clear. Many voluntary-sector bodies that would be involved do not have the resources that are required for the task.

I have never heard the figure of 60,000 dogs mentioned. Paragraph 61 relates to individuals who are disqualified as a result of contravening the act, rather than to the general issue of disposal of dogs. I would be surprised if the number of dogs that had to be put down—were the bill to be enacted—approached even one tenth of the figure that David Davidson cites.

That figure came from evidence that was presented to the then Rural Affairs Committee. I cite it on the basis that those who produced it had examined the issue carefully. Can you quantify under paragraph 61 how many dogs would have to be put down and how much that would cost?

That is a different issue. Paragraph 61 relates to individuals who are disqualified for contravening the act, rather than to the consequences of the bill's being enacted and restricting the use of dogs in hunting. That is a separate matter. I do not have a figure for the number of dogs that would have to be put down were the bill to be enacted. I have never seen that quantified and I do not accept that a mass slaughter of dogs would be required. That has been suggested in some quarters, but I question the need for it.

I accept that paragraph 61 refers to individuals who are subject to disqualification orders. However, I am concerned about the wider issue. I did not come up with the figure of 60,000—it was cited in evidence to the then Rural Affairs Committee. If the bill is enacted, we may have to deal with a problem on that scale.

Paragraph 61 refers solely to the welfare and disposal of dogs that belong to people who are disqualified under the act, rather than to all hunting dogs.

I accept that. However, the bill could have a much a broader impact, were it to be enacted. There would be a financial hit.

Is the committee minded to approve the financial memorandum?

Members indicated agreement.

I now close the public part of the meeting. We will consider the next item on our agenda in private.

Meeting continued in private until 11:52.