Chamber and committees

Under agenda item 2, the committee will take evidence on the local governance review. We will hear from two panels of witnesses. First, we are joined online by Councillor Shaun Macaulay, deputy leader, North Ayrshire Council; Councillor Alex Nicoll, co-leader, Aberdeen City Council; and Councillor James Stockan, leader, Orkney Islands Council. We are joined in the room by Councillor Euan Jardine, leader, Scottish Borders Council; and Councillor David Ross, leader, Fife Council. I welcome our witnesses to the meeting.

Committee members will direct their questions to specific witnesses where possible. However, if anyone else wishes to come in, please indicate your desire to do so to the clerks. Those who are participating remotely can do that by typing an R in the chat box in BlueJeans.

I will begin with a question to set the foundation of our conversation, so I will direct it to all of you. Thinking broadly about the current challenges that local government faces, I would be interested in hearing about some of the biggest challenges that your local authority faces and what you would like to see in this week’s budget to help to address them and improve outcomes in your local areas.

I will start with somebody who is in the room and then go to the folks online. Would David Ross like to start? It looked like you were ready to go for it.

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.

I am just winding up.

I will press amendment 1.

I will speak about rough shooting in a moment. We have just had the UK Climate Change Committee’s report, which calls on us to make changes. Over the coming months, we as a committee, and the Parliament, will be looking at various issues and bills, and we should bear in mind that we will need to radically change what we do. When we legislate today for provisions that are going to be used in future, we need to think about why we are doing so. There are pressures that we perceive now, but there will be different pressures in the future. As we are involved in making legislation, we have the challenge of working today to address something that is going to have to change radically.

I am concerned, in particular, about Rachael Hamilton’s amendment on rough shooting, and I thank the minister for her clarifications in that area. In written evidence, Police Scotland stated:

“Although most individuals would respect this law, this aspect of the bill provides a platform to conduct illegal hunting utilising packs of dogs.”

The SSPCA made a similar point, stating:

“as soon as it becomes a loophole, those who are not law abiding will use it as an excuse, which will tarnish everybody who does it lawfully.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, 23 November 2022; c 30.]