Chamber and committees

I want to declare less of an interest and more of an objectivity: my constituency of the Western Isles has no native fox population. There was a single sighting some 14 years ago, which can convincingly be explained as a fox only if it was either an exceptionally good swimmer or a very sly CalMac passenger. I have tried to approach my role on the committee from that dispassionate starting point.

I thank everyone involved in the stage 1 report, including all the other committee members, the witnesses, those stakeholders who provided written evidence and, not least, the committee clerks. It is important to remember that the aims of the bill grew out of the response to Lord Bonomy’s report on the review of the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002, by producing better and less ambiguous legislation on the hunting of wild mammals. Doing so requires considering two objectives: on the one hand, preventing cruelty, and on the other, recognising the legitimate needs for pest control that farmers and other land managers have.

Although it is inevitable that not all will agree with the committee’s findings in the stage 1 report, I believe that the committee has taken balanced evidence on the many questions before it and has done so in more measured tones than one or two of the contributions in the debate suggest we have.

This is undeniably a difficult and technical issue. Rather than engage with inevitably polarising articles of faith around the question of hunting with dogs, I believe that the committee’s stage 1 report is instead an effort to examine the facts. Not only does it seek to examine the Scottish Government’s proposals, it requests, as others have mentioned, further information from the Government on points of the bill where further information was, in the committee’s view, still needed. The Government has already responded to that call, which is very welcome, and the Government’s response to the report will, I believe, help to inform the bill as it goes forward.

A number of stakeholders have already commented that the bill represents a significant clarification of the law. Perhaps most notably, as I alluded to in an earlier intervention, the author of the 2016 review, Lord Bonomy, in giving evidence to the committee, said that he regarded the bill as a

“very well-crafted piece of legislation”

and an improvement on the existing law. He said that the bill

“solves the problems that I identified about the loose and variable use of language. It makes everything much clearer and simpler, which, in itself, should be a great incentive for better enforcement of the law, because the police and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service were struggling with the effective detection and prosecution of offenders.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, 15 June 2022; c 41.]

In the same evidence session, Dr Pete Goddard from the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission said:

“There are some small points on which greater clarity and less confusion could be introduced but, in general, it is moving towards questioning practices and looking for solutions that follow international ethical principles for wildlife control”.—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, 15 June 2022; c 12.]

He said that it was “very supportive” of such moves.

However, the report also acknowledges the views of a minority of committee members on various specific issues such as the inclusion of rabbits in the definition of wild mammal and whether the bill could create a liability for dog walkers where a dog chases a wild mammal while being exercised. Incidentally, for my part, I believe that the evidence that we heard answered any questions about that last scenario very convincingly, and that view was shared by the majority of the committee.

Other issues on which we took extensive evidence included the proposed two-dog limit and, as others have discussed, the licensing scheme that would provide for exceptions to that; the introduction of deprivation orders, which would allow the courts to intervene in relation to any dogs or horses used in an offence; allowing exceptions for the training of dogs; the use of dogs underground; and the inclusion, as we have talked about, of rabbits in the terms of the bill, which, as others have alluded to, is intended to address the fact that those suspected of hare coursing frequently use as a cover the explanation that they are legally using dogs to hunt rabbits.

I thank the member for raising the issue. My recollection from the evidence that was given to us by the police is that they would welcome measures that would address the issue of individuals using the excuse of hunting rabbits as a cover for illegal hare coursing. That is a sensible measure that the bill seeks to bring in.

To conclude, in our stage 1 report, the committee recommends that the Parliament approves the general principles of the bill. That has perhaps not always been emphasised in the course of the debate, so let me emphasise it now: the committee report recommends that we as a Parliament approve the general principles of the bill, and I hope that Parliament will now do so.

I will resist the temptation to talk about a specific building, cabinet secretary, as we have already corresponded on it.

On the issues that you are raising with regard to Historic Environment Scotland, what is your expectation of the extent to which those communities to whom historic buildings that might not be open are still important should be involved and kept aware of what is going on?

My other question is about a subject that we have touched on regularly in the committee and which you have just alluded to, Mr Munro. I will address the question to Councillor Heddle and Mr Booth. On wellbeing, some of you have mentioned the issue of warm spaces. I do not pretend that the function of culture, as practised or promoted by local government or other agencies, is simply to provide warm spaces. However, you have acknowledged the pressure that you will face to provide such facilities. Will both of you say a bit more about how that will be worked into what you do?

Iain Munro, you have reflected on some of the budget pressures that the whole public sector undoubtedly faces. However, it should also be noted that the Scottish Government has seen £1.7 billion disappear out of its budget as a result of inflation.

I do not want to take away from the pressures that you have described, but I am curious to know whether you think that there is anything to be learned from the experience of the pandemic. You rightly say that the situation now is very different and that the pressures are perhaps even greater, but I think that the committee has had some evidence or comment that, during the pandemic, Creative Scotland went to some length to streamline its application process. I realise that we cannot make direct comparisons, but can anything be learned from the experience of the pandemic in dealing with the current inflationary emergency?

In that case, does the Government have its own source of information about the kind of inflationary pressures that are on rural and agricultural businesses? You have alluded to that, but how has that information shaped or determined what you have done in the budget for your portfolio?

I am tempted to say that Scotland has two Governments but only one of them is elected.

How does having money spent on those priorities—money that, until now, has always been regarded as devolved money—impact on the work of the Scottish Government?

To be honest, convener, my points have been raised.

I second that.

Not only do different local authorities have different resources available to them, but individual communities and islands within local authority areas have varying opportunities to make their voices heard. How do you manage to hear the diversity of voices from different islands within local authority areas?