Seòmar agus comataidhean

It would run with the land, not with the individuals. NatureScot would receive an application for an area of land, it would consider the terrain—that being one of the main considerations—and it would determine whether it was suitable to grant a licence over that land.

The point about who would be liable in the case of a breach of conditions is important. That will always be the person or people who are undertaking the activity. Under section 1(4), those undertaking the activity will be everyone involved, not just those who are controlling the dog. As concerns applications for categories of persons, those liable would still be the people undertaking the activity. Likewise, if a farmer had applied for an agency to undertake the work, it would be in the first instance the agency—the folks on the ground who were undertaking the activity—who would be liable for any breach of licence conditions.

I would add that there are ancillary provisions in the bill that might catch the farmer in those circumstances if they had knowingly permitted illegal activity to take place on their land.

I would be happy to meet you to explain it further.

That might be the case in certain circumstances, but it would be for—

Yes. [Interruption.]

I do not appreciate the whispering across the room.

It was 205 and 232.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 22 seeks to change one of the tests for granting a licence from

“there is no other solution which would be effective”

to “there is no other solution which would be practical”. I have considered that very closely. To simply substitute “practical” for “effective” could significantly weaken a key licensing test, so I cannot support that today. However, I accept that there are situations in which a solution would be effective—say, in preventing predation from taking place—but might not be practical to achieve. For example, building and maintaining a high fox-proof fence around a large field might be effective in keeping foxes out, but there is a question about whether it would be practical to achieve for the farmers who would be involved.

On the other hand, it could be argued that, for a solution to be considered effective, it is implied that it would be practical. However, I would like to give further thought to that and, if necessary, come back with an amendment at stage 3 to cover those points.

Amendments 206, 210, 233 and 235, in Rachael Hamilton’s name, would allow a licensing authority to specify any number of dogs rather than the minimum number that would be effective. I do not support those amendments. The requirement for the licensing authority to specify the maximum number of dogs that are to be used is an important safeguard to maintain the tightly construed licensing scheme that we want. With any other approach, we would risk creating loopholes, and that must be avoided. Having the minimum number specified by the licensing authority is consistent with our approach of ensuring that we use more than two dogs only when there is no other effective solution.

Amendments 23 and 34, in Rachael Hamilton’s name, which were earlier alternative amendments to 206, 210, 233 and 235, would adjust the wording of the test rather than delete it altogether. I repeat that the requirement for the licensing authority to specify the maximum number of dogs that are to be used is in our view an important safeguard that we will seek to maintain, so we cannot support those amendments.

I support amendments 157, 160, 172 and 173, in the name of Jim Fairlie, for all the reasons that have been stipulated. For the sake of time, therefore—if Jim Fairlie does not mind—I will move on.

Amendments 116 and 130, in the name of Colin Smyth, would amend sections 4 and 8 respectively. They propose that applications for a licence to use more than two dogs should be subject to adherence to a set of standards. There has been some discussion about that. I am sympathetic to the intention behind these amendments and I listened closely to what Colin Smyth had to say.

I know that NatureScot has looked closely at the international ethical principles of wildlife management and examined how those compare to its own shared approach, which, again, has been discussed. I have confidence in the shared approach, not least because it was discussed and developed over a long period of time and brought together a range of diverse stakeholders around points on which they could coalesce.

However, the main point that I put to Colin Smyth today is that the Scottish Government is shortly to commission a review of licensed wildlife management, which will look at welfare aspects and may recommend changes across the board. As previously discussed with regard to fees, I am reluctant to make changes to a particular category when a larger piece of work, which will look at the issues as a whole, is coming down the track. For that reason, I cannot support amendments 116 and 130.

I turn to amendments 207, 208, 24 and 25, in the name of Rachael Hamilton. I am not persuaded by these amendments. I think that a year is too long for the validity of a particular licence, bearing in mind the need to maintain tight control. The deletion of a maximum period through amendments 207 and 208 would appear to remove the licensing authority’s ability to license fewer than 14 dogs and would require it to license 14 dogs, which we could not support. I am sorry; I mean 14 days—I am getting confused now. We therefore cannot support these amendments either.

Having said that, I am aware that there is concern about the time period over which the 14 days could be used. I have listened carefully to the discussions on the licensing period in section 3 and to the evidence that the committee has heard. I remain of the view that 14 days is the correct maximum number of days for a licence to cover. I am persuaded, however, that there could be more flexibility around the period in which those 14 days could be used. I propose a maximum number of 14 days to be used in a period of six months. Again, that does not allow any more days of activity, but it allows for flexibility to deal with things such as a change of plans, bad weather and unforeseen events.

Amendments 211 and 236, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, would insert the word “other” into licensing provisions in section 4 and section 8 respectively, so that, where the bill says that licences

“must specify ... any conditions to which the licence is subject”,

the wording would be changed to read “any other conditions”.

I understand the intention, but the thinking is incorrect, as it confuses what those subsections are. They are not conditions—they list the information that must be specified in the licence. The amendments would therefore not work, and I ask Rachael Hamilton not to move them.

I turn to Christine Grahame’s amendment 161 and the point about publication of a register of licences under section 4. I am sympathetic to that; transparency in how licences operate is always desirable. NatureScot already successfully shares a lot of information on wildlife management licences, not least—as has been seen recently—in detailed reporting on the operation of the licences to manage beavers, so there is a precedent. There are also plans to publish data on all of NatureScot’s licences, but we need to work carefully through the general data protection regulation legislation in order to do that in a way that is legally watertight and does not undermine the GDPR.

That being the case, and having listened to the exchanges, I will continue to consider Christine Grahame’s points, and I assure her today that I will commit to going as far as possible within the remit of the GDPR to publish what it is that she is asking for.

Well, it has, because the framework of it is there in the bill, and we have said from the beginning that the bill will set out the fundamental parts of the licensing scheme and that that will be supplemented by guidance.

Consultation has informed what is in the bill, just as it will inform what is included in the guidance, so it is not correct to suggest that taking into account stakeholders’ views in the aftermath of the bill would be problematic because we would not be able to undo what had been done before; their views have been part of the process from the beginning and they have shaped much of what we have in front of us, just as they will shape the guidance.

I have two more sections to address. Amendment 104, from Edward Mountain, which inserts an additional section that requires NatureScot to either grant or refuse a licence on receipt of a licence application and allows the Scottish ministers the ability to decide whether a licence has been reasonably refused. We touched on that subject earlier, so, if you do not mind, I will not deal with it again but will move swiftly on to amendments 105 and 106.

Edward Mountain made a point about replacing references to SNH with references to NatureScot, which is not required, because Scottish Natural Heritage remains the correct legal name. That is set out in the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991, and it should be used in this context. Edward Mountain referred to the constant changing of names, but I think that one change in 20-odd years is not bad.

I already have great confidence not only in NatureScot and its expertise, but in the good relationship that exists at a local level between NatureScot representatives and the people with whom it works in various ways, which Jim Fairlie pointed out. That will only improve and, as I say, NatureScot and I are committed to continued consultation with people who would seek to use that section of the bill.

The point about the difference between the amendments is more of a technical one. Ultimately, we cannot say that it is for the applicant to decide on the number of guns; it must always technically be for the licensing authority to make that judgment in all circumstances. That is the licensing authority’s duty to fulfil, but I have every confidence that there is a good relationship there and that there will be a good understanding of what is required. The fact that applicants will be able to give an indication of what they think will be the correct number of guns will be useful in that regard but, ultimately, the decision must lie with the licensing authority.

I move on to Edward Mountain’s amendments 72, 103 and 107, which would add a new section and amend sections so that NatureScot could not implement a fee. The provisions in the bill around the potential for NatureScot to charge a fee are similar to those that are in other legislation under which NatureScot operates a licensing scheme, such as those under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994. I do not see why our approach would differ under the bill. The Scottish Government has committed to reviewing the approach to charging for licensing generally in the near future, so it would not be correct to pursue differences in this scheme when that review is shortly coming down the track. For those reasons, I do not support those amendments.

Amendments 168, 148, 150, 152 and 154 would introduce a new section after section 6 of the bill. That new section would create a new exception to the offences in sections 1 and 2 of the bill to allow for searching for injured wild mammals.

The exceptions already in the bill allow for the use of up to two dogs to search for an animal that has been injured by an attempt to kill it in the course of hunting with dogs. However, as drafted, the bill does not allow the use of dogs to search for a wild mammal that has been injured in a manner not related to hunting.

Engagement with stakeholders at stage 1, including Forestry and Land Scotland, highlighted that it is necessary to include an exception that allows the use of dogs to search for an injured wild mammal in those circumstances. For example, FLS has, on occasion, deployed dogs to search for deer that have been injured as part of a road traffic accident or where a member of the public has spotted an injured animal on its land.

The committee also acknowledged the comments made by stakeholders during its evidence sessions and noted the absence of a provision to allow for two dogs to search for and retrieve a wild mammal that has been injured not in the course of hunting. In my response at stage 1, I announced my intention to address that.

Similarly, amendments 169, 149, 151, 153 and 155 introduce another new exception that allows the use of up to two dogs to search for dead wild mammals. The definition of wild mammal in the bill does not specifically exclude deceased wild mammals. Therefore, it applies to living and dead wild mammals that fall within the definition, and, to allow the use of a dog to search for a dead wild mammal, we need to provide an exception.

Having spoken to stakeholders, I am aware that there are many different examples of a variety of people using dogs to search for dead wild mammals for a variety of purposes. Examples that the committee will be interested to note include Police Scotland searching for dead wild mammals as part of the investigation of wildlife crime or researchers and surveyors assessing the impact of any manner of developments on different species.

To prevent a loophole where a person could use either of those exceptions as a cover for the illegal hunting of live wild mammals—for example, by claiming that their pack of 10 dogs was searching for an injured or dead wild mammal—we have applied the same safeguards that have been included in section 3 and sections 5 to 7. Namely, the person using the exceptions must not use more than two dogs, must take steps to ensure that those dogs do not join others to form a pack and must have permission from the landowner or be otherwise authorised to enter land.

Amendment 168A, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, would remove the two-dog limit from the new exception under amendment 168. As I have said, that would be a very obvious loophole, as it would allow more than two dogs—actually, any number of dogs—to search for an injured animal. I can see how a person could very easily claim that their pack of 10 dogs was searching for injured wild mammals as a cover for illegal hunting.

To be clear, the two-dog limit that is used throughout the bill is there because, as we have discussed, there will be greater control over one dog or two dogs than there would be over a pack of dogs. Where there is less control over a pack of dogs, there is always a higher risk of more than two dogs chasing and killing a wild mammal.

We are certainly the first UK country to move to adopt the standards. I suspect that other nations in the UK are considering how they will do it. I cannot speak for the pace at which they are doing it, but we certainly hope that they will adopt the standards, because, as we were discussing before we came to the committee, water is not something that respects boundaries—we all share an environment and we all want the highest standards. Having said that, I mentioned that it is a long, complex directive with some requirements that do not come into place until the late 2020s. Therefore, member states and non-member states such as us have had to take a considerable time to consider the directive and plan for its implementation. I suspect that member states are grappling with that. However, it is certainly positive and worthy of pursuing.