Chamber and committees

Will the minister take an intervention on that point?

As I read the bill, it would allow two dogs to be used, and those two dogs to be substituted by another two dogs, and then by another two dogs, potentially while chasing or flushing out the same wild mammal. Is that the case? Are you saying that two dogs cannot be substituted in the same area? That is not my interpretation of the bill.

That does not change the fundamental point that wild mammals escape. They are not always flushed out immediately, and they often run for cover elsewhere. In effect, what would be allowed to continue would be the perpetual flushing out and chasing of animals over a period of time by allowing two dogs to be substituted.

The only circumstance that I can think of in which two dogs would be substituted would be over a long period of time. There is nothing in my reading of the bill that would not potentially mean that the same wild mammal could, in effect, be pursued by two dogs, a further two dogs and then a further two dogs. There is nothing in the bill that stops that happening, as far as I can tell. The fact that two dogs are seeking to flush out a wild mammal does not mean that the mammal will be successfully shot immediately. Further dogs could be used to continue to flush out that animal.

I have just finished my comments, but I am happy to take an intervention.

The minister may not like to refer to chasing, but that is the reality of what we are talking about in relation to the bill. That will happen—there is no question about that. The debate is about a pack of hounds or two dogs, but that is, in effect, what will happen. Whether the dogs are flushing out or chasing, the point has been made several times that two dogs could become exhausted over a period of time. The wild mammal that is being flushed out, chased or whatever could become exhausted, too. There is no animal welfare argument for substituting two dogs.

That probably backs up my case. If it will not happen, why are you concerned about the bill making it an offence? Mr Fairlie says that we will never get a situation where two dogs will be used and then substituted effectively by another two dogs. I do not agree with him, but, if that is the case, there is no reason at all why we should not close the potential loophole in the bill and make it an offence for that to happen in the first place. Why would you be concerned about that?

I am disappointed that there is no support for amendment 113. The purpose of the bill is to close loopholes that were left open by the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 while avoiding any new loopholes. I believe that there is a potential loophole.

My amendments were designed to ensure that people who are hunting cannot, in effect, use multiple pairs of dogs, one after the other, to chase wild mammals. A relay would be needed only if those dogs were relentlessly pursuing a wild mammal over a long period of time. Excluding the word “relay” leaves that possibility open as a potential loophole that could be exploited.

I am not convinced that a second or a third pair of dogs substituting for the first are not likely to chase the same quarry, and I am unsure how that would be enforced. I am not convinced that a second or a third pair of dogs would not continue in the same area, effectively chasing the same quarry.

I support amendment 14, in the name of Ariane Burgess, and consequential amendments 2, 4, 6 and 8, which seek to remove the whole of section 6. I do not believe that we should be killing animals for sport or that removing the section would undermine the bill’s purpose and overall effectiveness. The minister has stated in oral evidence that, in the bill, the Scottish Government is

“pursuing the highest possible animal welfare standards”

and seeking to

“rectify what was supposed to have been done 20 years ago”.—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, 29 June 2022 ; c 2, 11.]

If the bill is to rectify the flaws in the 2002 act, there must be the minimum of exceptions and they must not be made for sporting reasons.

If members do not support the amendment to remove section 6, I direct them to amendments 123 and 146, in my name, which seek to remove falconry as a permitted use of dogs. The RAINE Committee rightly questioned the inclusion of falconry in its stage 1 report, and members asked for further information on why such an exception had been included in the scope of the bill and raised concerns about section 6(2)(e), which requires that

“the wild mammal which is being searched for, stalked or flushed is shot dead, or killed by a bird of prey”.

The Scottish Government’s response does not adequately explain how the flushing of a wild mammal to be killed by a waiting bird of prey can be considered any more humane than its being killed by a dog, and its argument that falconry is a permitted activity is even less convincing. The question is, should it be a permitted activity? From the point of view of animal welfare, the answer is very much no. I therefore urge members to support the amendments to remove falconry, at the very least, from the bill’s exceptions.

I thank the committee for considering my amendment 110, which relates to a defence for a person who is charged with the offence of hunting a wild animal with a dog.

The bill provides that

“It is a defence for a person charged with an offence ... to show that the person reasonably believed that any of the exceptions”

in the bill applied. In effect, that would require proof of the individual’s state of mind, which would on its own be difficult to evidence. My amendment 110 simply seeks to shift the emphasis on the grounds for that reasonable belief so that it is objective rather than subjective, and so that it is capable of being demonstrated by the landowner. As currently drafted, the bill would require speculation on the state of mind of a person who believed or claimed to have reasonably believed that the relevant exception would apply.

My amendment would change the emphasis from the person’s assertion of their belief to the available evidence that gave them the grounds for that reasonable belief. The requirement for evidence would not be onerous and it would depend on the specific exception. For example, the evidence could be an email to the landowner or occupier from the person who was using the dog or dogs stating that the reason why they were carrying out fox control on the land was the identification of a high level of predation of lambs there.

The term “reasonably believed” is open to interpretation and difficult to quantify, so I believe that it should be backed by a requirement for evidence. My fear is that, if we fail to include that, it could allow an unnecessary loophole. Whatever position members take on hunting, I do not believe that my amendment is in any way unreasonable. I note that the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, NFU Scotland and the National Sheep Association Scotland do not oppose it.

Edward Mountain raised the issue of who would make the judgement. It would be dealt with in the same way that, under the bill, the term “reasonably believed” would be dealt with. It would be up to the courts and others to decide whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that the exception applied. In the same way, it would be necessary to prove that the landowner “reasonably believed“ that the exception applied. My amendment would make it easier to prove than it will be if we rely on the phrase “reasonably believed”. I urge members to support amendment 110.

I support amendments 9 to 12 and 15 to 20, in the name of Ariane Burgess, which would remove section 4 from the bill. The bill as it stands would allow for a continuation of the use of packs of dogs in hunting, albeit under licence. It therefore fails to fully close the loopholes that exist in the current legislation; it merely licenses them.

I am clear that we cannot license cruelty. We cannot believe, on the one hand, that we need to limit the number of dogs to two because that reduces the risk of dogs instinctively chasing and killing, while, on the other hand, continuing to allow the use of packs of dogs simply because someone has a licence. One does not close one loophole by creating another.

I do not agree that these are wrecking amendments—in fact, what is wrecking is including licensing in a bill that seeks to end the use of packs of dogs. Alternative and more humane methods are available to manage wild mammals.