Seòmar agus comataidhean

That question contains a number of aspects, so you will have to forgive me, because I will have to unpack them in turn. I will try to be as quick as possible.

You mentioned evidence for the inclusion of the welfare of rabbits. Since the introduction of the bill, I have been clear that the purpose of including rabbits is twofold. One reason is about the welfare of rabbits, and the other is about avoiding the taking of rabbits being used as a cover for hare coursing.

On the evidence on welfare, Mike Flynn said:

“A lot of people think that, in all these sorts of activities, the dog kills the animal instantly. You might get away with that with mice or rats, but it is definitely not the case with foxes or even rabbits. Not all of them are instantly killed and, in any case, they also experience the fear of being chased.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, 15 June 2022; c 15.]

That goes to the heart of the bill. A rabbit is a sentient being and, if we protect hares, we ought to treat rabbits similarly. Kirsty Jenkins of OneKind made that point at the round table last week.

The second reason why we included rabbits is to make sure that they can no longer be used as a cover for hare coursing. At the round table, when Rachael Hamilton asked DS Telford about that, he said:

“In relation to the enforcement of hare coursing offences, the addition of rabbits would aid police investigations.”

Rachael Hamilton then asked:

“Is that based on evidence?”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, 23 November 2022; c 35.]

DS Telford’s response was to say yes.

That is my position. Equally, I would say that removing rabbits from the scope of the bill would not take rough shooting outwith the bill’s remit, because animals such as foxes and hares would still be shot in that way, and they would still be protected under the bill.

The second part of your question was about the suggestion of including a recklessness element and landowner’s permission. The Scottish Countryside Alliance talked about that, and it is something that I have considered and, as I said, I keep considering it. I am not going to stand in the way of making the bill better; I want it to succeed.

However, I have to make two points on that. First, the words “recklessness” and “deliberately” were the exact terms that Lord Bonomy advised us should not be contained in the new act if we are to avoid subjectivity that is not helpful. The other point that I would make is that landowner permission will be required under the bill, and it does not address the welfare element.

I will consider all amendments ahead of stage 2.

I observed that part of the discussion and I thought that it was an interesting one. Mercedes Villalba also raised that point.

That might be an option for getting around the risk of vexatious complaints, if the shooting industry felt that it was really problematic. However, I bear in mind what the Scottish Countryside Alliance said about how that could be bureaucratic, and I genuinely want to see the bill take a proportionate approach.

I do not believe that the bill creates or exacerbates the risk of vexatious complaints. For example, these provisions are already in place in England and Wales, and I am not aware of any rise in the number of vexatious complaints there. Of course, if that was a risk and something that the shooting industry was particularly concerned about, I would be pleased to work with it to discuss how we might avoid that.

Yes, I do. First, it is important to have consistency across the bill and the various types of hunting. Secondly, the changes that might require to be made to some activities that are regarded as rough shooting are minimal and proportionate. Many people already comply with those things that we will be asking them to comply with. The changes are minimal and proportionate and everything that I have heard gives me confidence that it will not be difficult to ensure that those well-trained dogs do what will be required under the new regulations.

Rough shooting and falconry are legal activities in Scotland, and—in the course of pursuing the Government’s aim with the bill—I am not in the business of going in by the back door to try to close down activities that are otherwise legal. That is not the purpose of the bill and it would be an arbitrary stretch of the bill if we were to do that, so I need to make sure that we avoid it.

The number of dogs is the principal factor, but, of course, they would not be considered a pack if they were on opposite sides of a field, so the activity is relevant, as the dogs would have to be together.

That is a good question. My experience in introducing the bill tells me that there is no single definition and that it would be a vexed activity to try to make a definitive definition. There are many permutations of what people think constitutes a rough shoot and my team and I have worked hard to speak to as many people as possible to get the widest possible view on what constitutes a rough shoot. However, it coalesces around an activity in which a line of people moves across ground with dogs who flush the quarry that is to be shot and retrieved, often for sport and sometimes for food. I know that the committee discussed this at the round table, but there is also sometimes a wildlife management element to it.

There is no one definition, however, and I guard against seeking one.

Gun dogs such as Labradors, spaniels and so on.

Yes.

That is a reasonable question. We have already been discussing it for some time with NatureScot, to ensure that there is clear understanding about the extra work that comes with an additional licensing scheme and the body’s capacity to fulfil that. It has assured us thus far that that is manageable within its current budget.