Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes.

Amendment 175 introduces powers for a constable to stop and search a person without warrant where that constable has

“reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has committed or is committing an offence”

under the bill. It includes powers for a constable to

“search or examine any thing found in the course of a search”

and to

“seize any thing found in the course of a search”.

Where a constable has reasonable cause to suspect that a person has committed an offence under the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 and to suspect that evidence of the offence is to be found on the person, section 7 of the 2002 act allows them to stop and search the person in question.

Of course, stop and search powers should not be conferred lightly. However, having reflected on comments that were made by the police at stage 1 of the bill’s progress through the Parliament, and having considered the powers that are available to the police under other legislation on wildlife, we consider it appropriate to include in the bill powers for the police to stop and search a person on similar terms to those in the 2002 act.

Amendments 177 to 179, in my name, change the test in the bill’s schedule for empowering a constable to enter premises from one where that constable has reasonable grounds for “believing” that a relevant offence has been committed to one where they have reasonable grounds for “suspecting” that such an offence has been committed.

Section 13 of the bill introduces the schedule that makes the provision about the powers for constables. Currently, there are powers for constables to enter premises together with powers associated with entry, including those of search and seizure. Amendments 177 to 179 make minor adjustments to the schedule so that the wording of the tests for entry and seizure of items is consistent with that for the stop and search powers.

I could move on to speak to other members’ amendments—

No, I do not accept that, although I am grateful to Edward Mountain for his explanation. His description of a rabbit’s behaviour is probably right, but that does not remove or take away from the two key reasons why we have included rabbits in the bill, which are parity in relation to animal welfare and the reality that people are hare coursing under the guise of hunting rabbits, which we need to try to stop.

We have spoken at length about why consistency in the conditions in the bill, especially the two-dog limit, is important. The exceptions in Edward Mountain’s amendments would undermine the bill’s aims and objectives, because ultimately packs of dogs would be able to kill and chase rabbits, so I cannot support the amendments.

I cannot support amendment 63, which would change the section 1 definition of “hunting” and conflate the activities of “searching” and “coursing” in a single activity. The effect would be that any act of searching for a wild mammal without coursing would not constitute hunting, which could remove a large amount of activity from the scope of the bill. It might mean, in essence, that unless a person was caught in the act of flushing or chasing a wild mammal, they could go out with a pack of dogs and claim that they were simply searching for wild mammals with no intention to flush or chase them.

There is legal precedent for the Government’s position in that regard. In the first Scottish prosecution of the main offence under the 2002 act, in Fraser v Adams, the sheriff accepted that, as part of the meaning of “to hunt”, it was not necessary for an animal to have been located or killed for hunting to have taken place. The definition of hunting in the bill is non-exhaustive, but amendment 63 could mean that searching for an unidentified wild mammal would not constitute hunting, which would undermine what we are seeking to achieve with the bill and would create a significant loophole.

Amendments 64 to 68, which are also in the name of Edward Mountain, are about removing weasels, stoats, mink, polecats and ferrets from the definition of “wild mammal”, thereby allowing a person to hunt them, which would include chasing and killing them using a pack of dogs.

I ask the committee to note that those species are all included within the definition of “wild mammal” in the 2002 act, which means that it is currently illegal to chase and kill them. Edward Mountain’s amendments would therefore take us backwards, rather than forwards, as we hope to move. In addition, polecats are one of Scotland’s rarest mammals—they are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and can be controlled only under licence from NatureScot. I cannot see a rationale for excluding them from the bill, and I think that it would have negative welfare implications if we were to do so.

Amendment 110, in the name of Colin Smyth, seeks to require “evidence that supports” the position in a defence. That is opposed to the bill as currently drafted, which requires a person “to show” that they

“reasonably believed that any of the exceptions ... applied.”

I listened carefully to Colin Smyth’s view, and I do not disagree with him. However, in my view and that of the Government, the amendment is not necessary. In the context of a defence, the current requirement “to show” something would always require presenting some kind of evidence, which would be determined as part of the legal proceedings. The formulation of the statutory defence in the bill is consistent with the approach that is taken to statutory defences in other pieces of legislation, including the Fireworks and Pyrotechnic Articles (Scotland) Act 2022 and the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021.

I understand Colin Smyth’s position, and I reassure him that what is in the text of the bill will already require that evidence be shown. I therefore ask him not to move amendment 110.

Ariane Burgess’s melodic amendments 2, 4, 6, 8 and 14 remove the exception at section 6 from the bill with the effect that it would be unlawful to use a dog to search for or flush a wild mammal for the purpose of providing quarry for falconry, game shooting or deer stalking.

Section 6 covers quite a wide range of recreational activities that make a significant contribution to the rural economy. They all may use dogs at some time to search for or flush wild mammals for the purpose of shooting or, in the case of falconry, killing by a bird of prey, and it is therefore right that they come within the scope of the bill and be regulated as other uses of dogs in hunting in the countryside will be. That consistency is important to the bill. However, they are lawful activities and the purpose of the bill is to ensure that, when dogs are used, they are used in a way that protects wild mammals’ welfare. It is not to ban otherwise permitted and lawful activities.

Mercedes Villalba made a comment about the Government seeking to avoid a row. That is not the case at all. It is about us, as the Executive, and the Parliament, as the legislature, sticking within the remit of what is intended, has been consulted on and is expected from the bill. Therefore, I cannot support amendments 2, 4, 6, 8 and 14.

Amendments 132, 134, 136, 138 and 142, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, would insert a new section after section 6 that would allow for the use of any number of dogs for the purpose of rough shooting.

Rachael Hamilton is right that there has been a great deal of exchange on rough shooting. I spoke about it last week. I reiterate that the bill allows for the majority of permutations of rough shooting to continue. Some events might need to adapt, as we discussed last week, usually by making a minimal change to how they undertake their activities. Minimal change is justified when set against the risk of creating a new loophole that would enable people to take as many dogs as they like, say that they were rough shooting and, in turn, besmirch the legitimate activity of rough shooting.

Equally, as I explained last week, the consistency of the bill is a strength and we could not justify creating an exemption for regulation of rough shooting—not an unimportant activity but, in essence, a recreational one—when, for example, farmers will have to change their behaviour and comply when seeking to protect their livestock or undertaking other essential purposes, such as environmental management.

I take on board the point. We discussed the issue a great deal last week, and in other exchanges. The concern about rough shooting becoming a cover for unlawful activity in the bill is one important reason why it needs to be included and why we cannot create an exception for it. I have also spoken about the other reasons. We cannot consistently ask farmers, on the one hand, to comply with regulations when they are seeking to protect their livestock, with very serious economic implications, while on the other hand not asking those who are involved in a recreational activity to comply with the same regulations. That would be unjustified. There is a combination of reasons why we cannot allow such an exception to be made.

Rachael Hamilton spoke of the perceived risk of “vexatious” claims. As I said last week, I understand that, but I do not think that we can allow any perceived risk of such claims to facilitate something that would, in the case of an exemption for rough shooting, significantly undermine the bill. However, I said last week that I would be content to work with the shooting industry on post-legislative guidance in order to try to manage down the risk of vexatious claims. I continue to consider how best to formulate the bill and whether improvements can be made to clarify our position, which I have explained. However, for the reasons that I have stated, I cannot support these amendments.

Amendments 133, 135, 137, 139 and 143 would create a new section and exception for field trials. Much of the reasoning here is the same as for the amendments on rough shooting. Again, we have discussed at length how rough shooting and field trials where mammals are pursued are included within, but can continue under, the bill. It does not actually matter how many dogs are present at the event as a whole or whether a dog is simultaneously carrying out a separate searching and flushing or retrieving activity. Provided that no more than two dogs ever join to find and flush quarry together, there is no reason to think that field trials are not compatible with the bill as it is currently drafted or that they could not continue.

Yes, I am happy to.

I have.

I move amendment 148.

I am more than happy to keep talking to you about that, but my view today, and the reason why I will not support the proposal as formulated, is that review procedures are already very much built into the processes. That is within NatureScot, but I expect it could ultimately come under judicial review—I look to my legal colleagues on that. Review processes are available right up to judicial review, and I do not think that bringing those issues in house within the Scottish Government would be helpful.

I hope that that clarifies the point.

I have just explained that that is not the case. The individuals who were responsible for the breach of conditions on the ground would be responsible.

I cannot commit today to its being a public register. I have to consider what can be published within the scope of the GDPR.