Chamber and committees

On your point about the public wanting to ban fox hunting, is fox hunting not already banned?

Amendments 204, 209, 231 and 234 seek to clarify that a licence may be granted to categories of individuals that suggest some shared characteristic and groups of people, even where they do not necessarily amount to a category. There might be situations in which disparate individuals might need to apply for a licence jointly. As the committee heard in evidence, there might be different types of landholding that require fox control across various holdings if control is to be effective. There is no use in granting a licence to a livestock holding that does not cover adjacent land under different ownership that is without livestock but with large areas of forestry or other cover that act as a reservoir for foxes that predate on neighbouring livestock. The bill must allow sufficient scope for NatureScot to issue licences on the basis of need, whether to individuals, groups or categories of persons.

Amendment 205 is a relatively minor amendment that would allow NatureScot to issue a licence that would cover more than one species. As drafted, the bill states that a licence must be for “a particular species” instead of “particular species”. The amendment would ensure that the bill does not unnecessarily restrict NatureScot’s ability to issue licences as needed and that are practical.

Amendment 22 relates to the consideration of alternative methods of predator control. In oral evidence to the committee, it was stated that effectiveness is to be understood as relating to whether alternatives are practical and possible. There must be clarity in the bill that that is the case and that alternatives that might be effective would not necessarily be practical or affordable. It is important to avoid NatureScot facing legal challenges to licences that have been issued on the basis that it has failed to meet what amounts to a test where it must be satisfied that there is no alternative that would be effective. What really matters is whether the use of more than two dogs is necessary and whether that would make a significant contribution to the purpose for which a licence is granted.

The proposed new wording through amendment 22 would recognise, as the current wording does not, that the use of dogs to flush to guns under licence does not mean that other methods of fox control would not carry through alongside licenced control using dogs. Indeed, control is normally achieved using a combination of methods that complement one another and can be used concurrently. There is a danger of thinking that it is an either/or scenario; the reality is that successful fox control involves a variety of methods. Which methods are used; when, where and how they are used; and the combination of methods that are used at any given time will depend on terrain and other considerations that are best decided by the people who conduct the control of wildlife management on the ground.

Amendments 206, 23, 210, 34, 233 and 235 relate to a legal duty on NatureScot that it simply cannot discharge. NatureScot could not rationally reach a decision on the minimum number of dogs that were required for a given task. For example, on what evidential basis could it make a decision to allow eight dogs but not 10 dogs and that it should be eight and not seven or six dogs? Moreover, a person with a licence might be using dogs over a variety of terrain and cover, even on a single landholding. In relatively open country with limited cover, six dogs might be sufficient, but a far greater number might be required for a 1,000-acre block of forestry, for example.

The amendments would remove that burden—and the obvious risk of legal challenge to licences—and replace it with a more workable solution. It is proposed that a condition of the licence is that the people who are licensed use only the number of dogs that is appropriate in the circumstances. I think that that is part of the nature of the bill. That could be reinforced by a reporting requirement so that, if required, a person would have to explain and justify their decision on how many dogs to deploy at a given time and place.

Amendments 207, 208 and 24 would extend the period of time during which a 14-day licence could be used from 14 days to 12 months from the date on which the licence was granted. That would allow the licence to be used on a given number of days as part of the continuous process of predator control. It reflects what was accepted by all sides in oral evidence, which is that control is preventative, not simply in response to damage having been suffered.

The existing wording fails to recognise this reality that fox control is a year-round activity and that it is conducted using a variety of methods, depending on factors such as terrain and the time of year. Creating a fair and workable licensing regime, as has been described by the minister, is vital if effective fox control is to remain possible across larger parts of rural Scotland. Those amendments will help to achieve that.

During evidence to our committee, several witnesses, including the minister, noted that it was not possible to specify in the licence the number of guns to be deployed. It is hard to understand how NatureScot must specify the number of dogs and how it is rational to determine a specific number of dogs but not guns. For both the number of dogs and the number of guns, what is appropriate will depend on the circumstances. As with dogs, it should be a requirement that a licensed person is to be responsible for ensuring that an appropriate number of guns are deployed. That could be reinforced by a reporting requirement so that, if required, the person would have to explain and justify their decision about how many guns were deployed at a given time and place.

Lord Bonomy was also of the opinion that the number of dogs was not a problem and that reducing it to two would not change the situation other than by bringing the practice of flushing to guns to an end. Instead, he said that having a sufficient number of guns was the thing that mattered most. In Lord Bonomy’s words:

“I think that the number of guns is vital. As I have said, the different way that the foot packs went about it did not seem to me to involve a chase”.—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, 15 June 2022; c 47.]

Amendments 211 and 236 reflect that there are statutory conditions that apply to all licences, but there may be other additional conditions that are not explicitly required by the legislation, including ones that relate to the statutory conditions themselves.

Amendment 25 would provide a definition of an “approved professional body” in the bill for clarification on that point. It would also require ministers to create a code of practice for the purpose of a licensing scheme. That is because a definition of an approved professional body alongside a code of practice is required for the licensing scheme to function effectively. Licence holders would be expected to adhere to the code, and it would set out what was expected of them.

Amendment 232 would mean that, as would be the case with rough shooting, a licence holder would be able to specify more than one species of wild mammal when making an application. As the committee heard in evidence from BASC, a licence applicant could be dealing with more than one pest species at a time, but the bill as drafted would not make allowances for that. This amendment circumvents that issue.

Amendment 33 relates to the condition in the bill that the relevant authority may not issue a licence unless it is satisfied that

“killing, capturing or observing the wild mammal will contribute towards a significant or long-term environmental benefit, and ... that there is no other solution which would be effective in achieving the purpose set out in section 7(2) in relation to which the application for a licence is being made”.

That part of the bill is unnecessarily prohibitive. I have already discussed the matter of whether hunting with dogs should be a last resort, as this section would require. However, I am proposing an amendment that is less prohibitive while still showing that the aims as set out in section 7(2) would be met.

As I have already said, using dogs to help to control predators and pest species is often the most practical solution, and they can be used in tandem with other control methods for maximum efficiency. It is less practical to propose, as the bill does, that this should be an all-or-nothing choice between maximum control and inadequate control, depending on those arbitrary conditions. Amendment 33 would allow the right balance to be struck by the licensing scheme.

I know that we will disagree on this, because I still do not believe that rough shooting can be used as a cover for other activities.

I made two clear points: that the only activity that is done in rough shooting is flushing, and that in rough shooting, the bag is mixed quarry. On that basis, there is almost no event for which a proposed exception for rough shooting could be used as a cover, because it is so different.

As you know, I have an interest in the hospitality business. The licences in that business are slightly different, as individuals take quite stringent exams to get to the point at which they are issued with a licence.

It is not necessarily fair to compare apples and pears in these circumstances. Although people have to have a gun licence and be competent to have a gun and so on, such comparisons slightly confuse the situation. In licensing, we need more clarity and succinctness, rather than trying to muddy the waters with comparisons with other industries that may be slightly different.

Rough shooting has been very much in the spotlight during the past few committee sessions. From the outset, it has been abundantly clear that we need an exception for rough shooting. The British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the Scottish Countryside Alliance, the Scottish Gamekeepers Association and others have put forward credible, well-evidenced and legitimate points as to why rough shooting should continue, unhindered, through an exception.

During the round-table session, the issue of enforcement and proportionality was raised. BASC noted that there was a “good working relationship” with Police Scotland. However, Peter Clark from BASC and others noted that they felt that the drafting of the bill meant they could not conduct a rough shoot with confidence or without “vexatious allegations” over the breach of the two-dog limit. That is what amendment 142 and consequential amendments in my name seek to address.

I am mindful, as are BASC and others, that such an exception should never be a loophole, now or in the future. Those in the shooting community want to continue their lawful, legitimate activity without fear of vexatious allegations. They want to see the highest standards of animal welfare, and, by allowing an exception for rough shooting, they can continue that activity.

Amendment 142 recognises that, during a rough shoot, one, two or more dogs may be present; however, not all dogs are working simultaneously, due to the presence of a beating line and standing guns. Dogs do not form a literal pack as hounds do. Spaniels, Labradors and other gun dogs are not pack dogs, as the minister recognised in her response to the evidence at stage 1.

The word “intention” comes into play in the proposed new subsection (3). It has been made clear by the rural organisations that, during a rough shoot, there is no intention for dogs to form a pack, unlike in traditional hunting.

Amendment 142 provides an exception that cannot be used as a loophole, on the following basis. Flushing is the only activity during a rough shoot, involving the quick and humane dispatch of game birds and rabbits. BASC raised the point that

“there is no chasing or killing ... with dogs”.—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, 22 November 2022; c 3.]

Hunting with a licence is an activity that requires more than flushing, and anyone who tried to use the exception as a loophole would therefore fall foul of its provisions at the first hurdle.

In the proposed new subsection (3) in my amendment 142, I make it clear that such an activity is a “mixed quarry” day. An illegal hunt would seek to kill only wild mammals; no birds would be taken during a hunt. That is a key differentiation, and, yet again, anyone who was seeking to hunt with more than two dogs illegally for the purposes of chasing would have to apply for a licence.

Taking all of that into consideration, I would welcome the minister’s thoughts on my concerns and the concerns of the organisations, and on how, if she will not support an exception, she might later amend the bill to ensure that rough shooting is protected. It is vital that we get the bill right for rough shooting.

Excuse me, convener—I just need to check that I am speaking to amendments 133, 135, 137, 139 and 143, too.

What are the animal welfare implications of rough shooting? You seemed to say that the activities compromise animal welfare.

I would like you to put on record your comments with regard to the types of dogs that are working in a rough shoot and my specific points on dogs forming a pack. As has been discussed in previous evidence sessions, the types of dogs that are used in rough shoots, such as spaniels and other working dogs, are not trained to work in a pack as is the case with other dogs that are trained specifically to work as a team. There are quite a lot of anomalies here with regard to the differences in the activities. To my mind, the provision is not proportionate, because there is no definition of a pack, and working dogs do not work in a pack.

I concur with the comments of my colleague Edward Mountain on the fact that using more than two dogs would be appropriate in certain circumstances in which animals have been injured. My daughter hit a deer and there was no idea where it had got to. It was not known whether it was injured or where it had fallen. At that point, we did not need to use dogs, of course, but there are situations in rough terrain in which using more than two dogs would be appropriate.

Relieving the suffering of injured wild mammals is rightly prioritised in my amendment 168A, which adds to amendment 168 the reasonable steps that must be taken to ensure that animals that have been injured are located when the injury occurred as a result of the excepted activity. The amendment would not create a loophole; it was lodged purely for animal welfare reasons.

Unlike in the 2002 act, there is no recognition in the bill that dogs might need to be used to relieve suffering, as I have just described, or to locate or retrieve animals where one of the exceptions would not and could not apply. The amendment would rectify an omission.

I do not accept the minister’s dismissal of amendment 168A and her suggestion that it could be used as a loophole. The amendment is a really important one, and I ask the minister to reconsider it and to work with me in good faith on something that would both tighten up what she is concerned about and ensure that the absolute highest standards of animal welfare are delivered.

Amendment 35 addresses a semantic point in the bill. Hunting with dogs in the context of this amendment is necessary to protect livestock, woodland and crops from being attacked or degraded by foxes and other pest species. The threshold for what constitutes “serious” damage as opposed to any kind of damage is undefined, and it is important that livestock, woodland and crops are protected from any kind of harm. As we have heard in evidence from the NFUS, now more than ever, farmers’ livelihoods are under pressure. We cannot allow loose terms such as “serious” to dictate the gravity of damage. Therefore, my amendment would remove the word “serious” from this section to make it clear that an exception would apply to protect farmers’ stock and their livelihoods.

On Colin Smyth’s amendments 111, 119 and 127, I understand the concerns around animal welfare that underpin the second part of each of those amendments. However, the undertones are that it is not standard practice to implement the most appropriate and practical solution to wild mammal control and that the use of dogs is less humane than other methods. On the contrary, those participating in the control of wild mammals are best placed to discern what is appropriate, proportionate and humane, and there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that that method of mammal control is less humane than others. Therefore, I do not feel that the amendments are necessary.

Amendments 112, 144, 145 and 147 would prohibit the use of dogs for searching, stalking and flushing wild mammals during their breeding season, but they do not take into account the need for year-round control. Lambs do not suddenly become less susceptible to predation by wild mammals just because it is their breeding season. The reasonable justification for the use of dogs to search, stalk, and flush centres around the necessity to do so, and breeding seasons do not negate that necessity. Again, I understand the animal welfare concerns that underpin those amendments, but they cannot be supported, for the reasons that I have outlined.

I have some concerns about the welfare element of Colin Smyth’s amendments 118 and 144. Removing the provision to use dogs to relieve the suffering of dependent fox or mink would mean that those animals would be left to suffer, unable to fend for themselves. The purpose of including that in the bill is, as the section states, to relieve suffering. I fail to understand how removing that provision would have any effect other than to promote the suffering of dependent animals. I therefore cannot support those amendments.

I move amendment 35.

Obviously, the workshops will take place in the future—possibly after the passage of this bill. I am not quite sure of the timetable that you might have suggested in your letter.

If a stakeholder engagement session took place after the bill had passed, and if there was a discussion about licensing 14 days in a six-month period and a two-year licence, which currently exists for environmental benefit, and stakeholders and NatureScot decided that there was something in the middle to achieve environmental benefit but neither of those parameters was suitable, how would a change become effected in law?