Seòmar agus comataidhean

Hunt monitoring was set up in 2018—before my time—in the wake of Lord Bonomy’s report. I understand that the individual who was undertaking that work could not continue with it. Because of Covid and other complications, no one else was found to do the work and, by that point, we were pursuing primary legislation.

My position is that it would be best to get the bill through and then to consider what monitoring is required. I hope that we will have reached a point where the law and its application and enforcement are clear enough that we may have negated the need for monitoring, but that remains to be seen. We will know that once we get to the other side of the bill.

As I should have made clear in my answer to Karen Adam, the section relates to regulations to give effect to or in pursuit of the bill, not anything outwith its scope.

Perhaps Hazel Reilly might want to add to that.

I will take those questions in reverse order.

There is absolutely no prejudice whatsoever in the pursuit of our aims. As I have set out, the Government is pursuing the highest possible animal welfare standards, but it is necessarily seeking to find a balance, because we recognise that farmers, land managers and conservationists, in certain circumstances, have to be able to control wild mammals.

A very simple basis underlies what can be a complicated bill or a controversial issue—that is, that what has been happening has already been unlawful for 20 years. On the back of the Lord Bonomy review and concerns from the public, our intention now is to make what ought to have happened 20 years ago work.

You asked about the extent to which the bill is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I think—my officials will correct me if I am wrong—that Lord Bonomy identified in his report that about 20 per cent of all foxes that are killed using dogs in Scotland are killed unlawfully. Hugh Dignon is nodding. That is a substantial proportion. I accept that other methods of fox or mammal control that do not necessarily involve dogs are used, but I think that we would all agree that, where dogs are used, we ought to pursue the highest possible standards of welfare.

In response to your question on whether I think that the bill rises to the challenge of what we are pursuing—which is to have the highest possible animal welfare standards, acknowledge the need for control in rural Scotland and rectify what was supposed to have been done 20 years ago—the answer is that I do. However, we are at the beginning of the parliamentary scrutiny process, and I value the input of that process and am open minded on ways in which the committee and its witnesses think that the bill could be improved. I look forward to having discussions about that as we progress, and I also look forward to your stage 1 report.

Picking up on the previous point, I would just note that the bill makes reference to “preventing” damage, so it is not necessary to wait until damage has been done.

As for the minimum number of dogs, that is dependent on the activity, the land and the issue at hand. At this stage, I am not going to theorise about what would be a suitable number, because there are so many variables that I could not possibly be accurate.

I cannot give detail today on the content of the licence beyond that which is set out in the bill. The bill sets out the mandatory requirements for what will be in the licence, but the development and terms of the licensing scheme will be informed by the bill process and the stakeholder engagement that we are already undertaking.

NatureScot will review the operation of the licensing scheme, as it does with the operation of all the licensing schemes and other matters that it is in charge of. In the Bute house agreement, there is a commitment to review the operation of licensing schemes generally to ensure that they are compatible with the law and in line with our expectations. The licensing scheme under the bill will be part of that review, too.

For the two policy reasons that we have pursued the ban, which includes the fact that trail hunting is not a well-established practice in Scotland, I am content that it is a proportionate measure to take.

My officials and I have listened carefully to the discussion as it has played out. A range of issues have been brought up. Some of those have pertained to terms that are defined and terms that are not defined. I know that points have also been raised about whether we should have an additional offence of reckless conduct. I am listening to all of that, and I am happy to discuss any issues in particular.

The reckless conduct point was one that I thought about particularly closely because it went right to the core of what the offence is. Right now, we are proposing the offence of hunting and a second offence of knowingly permitting, and I understand that there were some calls for there to be an additional offence of reckless conduct. For me, the principal aim is to have clarity of expression and understanding, not only for those who would seek to use dogs in pursuit of legitimate activities but for law enforcement. When we add a degree of subjectivity with something such as reckless conduct, we are getting back into the ambiguities that were the problem in the 2002 act.

I place a lot of emphasis on the phrase “under control” in the bill, because that will be a key provision—it is central to the bill. When the bill is passed, it should be very clear to any observer or to anyone who wants to undertake control of wild mammals when they have the dogs under control and when they do not. That is what we were lacking before, and that is what I want to maintain in the bill. Those are just some examples, but if specific issues have been raised with the committee that you would like to speak to me about, I am more than happy to talk about them.

I also mentioned the issue of defining terms and not defining terms. Where the natural meaning of a term is quite straightforward, we have tried not to unnecessarily enclose it in a definition, because we know that when we try to do exhaustive definitions, things will naturally be missed. That will allow those who would seek to circumvent the provisions to say, “Well, I was undertaking an activity that was outwith your definition”. It just makes it more complicated, so we have tried to avoid doing that where we can.

On the banning of trail hunting?

Thank you, convener, and thank you all for the opportunity to give evidence on the draft order.

By way of background, the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board—AHDB—is a statutory levy board that is funded by farmers, growers and others in the supply chain. It provides services and advice to support and promote our world-class food and farming industry. The AHDB comprises six statutory levy-paying sectors that are included in the scope of the order, which are: the cereal and oilseed industries in the United Kingdom; the milk, horticulture and potato industries in Great Britain; and the pig, beef and sheep industries in England.

As the convener said, the order is a UK-wide instrument, to be made in exercise of powers conferred by the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 on the secretary of state, acting with the approval of the Scottish ministers. The act also provides that the Scottish ministers may not give that approval without the approval of the Scottish Parliament, which is why the order is before the committee today.

The purpose of the order is to amend the principal Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board Order 2008, which established the AHDB and is the source of its functions, to remove the statutory levies in the horticulture and potato sectors in Great Britain. That is being done because, in January and February 2021, levy payers in the horticulture and potato sectors triggered democratic ballots on whether they wanted the statutory levy to continue in their sectors. In the horticulture ballot, 61 per cent voted against the levy continuing, from a 69 per cent turnout. In the potato ballot, 66 per cent voted against the levy continuing, from a 64 per cent turnout. The order respects those democratically expressed views and the outcome of those ballots by removing all the legislative provisions for the statutory levy in those two sectors.

In addition, the order seeks to improve accountability for the remaining levy-paying sectors, which I mentioned a moment ago. It does that by imposing a new duty on the AHDB to deliver a regular vote by levy payers—at least once every five years—on what their levy will be spent on.

Finally, the order makes an amendment to the original AHDB order to clarify that the AHDB’s ability to charge for services includes all the industries in the scope of the order and not only those sectors that pay a levy. The amendment is purely technical and will ensure that, although the statutory levy is being removed for horticulture and potatoes, the rest of the order will continue to apply to those sectors. It means that, if they decided to, businesses in either sector could continue to work with the AHDB on a voluntary or commercial basis.

In addition to the provisions that are contained in the order, the AHDB consulted on a further proposal, which was on broadening the AHDB’s scope to further agricultural sectors. A majority of respondents in Scotland resisted that proposal and voted against it, and they highlighted that the AHDB should use this opportunity—following the vote and the removal of the levy in some sectors—to rationalise and deliver excellence in its service rather than expand it, so that has not been included.

In summary, I support the changes that the order makes to give expression to the democratic views that are expressed by the horticulture and potato sectors and to introduce greater accountability for the remaining sectors. Looking forward, we will continue to work closely with the horticulture and potato sectors as they work to identify their priorities and the way in which they wish to organise themselves outwith the scope of the statutory mechanism. The draft order provides the flexibility that will enable them to do that on an individual subsector basis, and we will work with them as they decide what they wish to do.

That is plenty from me, but my officials and I are happy to answer any questions.