Seòmar agus comataidhean

I support amendment 14, in the name of Ariane Burgess, and consequential amendments 2, 4, 6 and 8, which seek to remove the whole of section 6. I do not believe that we should be killing animals for sport or that removing the section would undermine the bill’s purpose and overall effectiveness. The minister has stated in oral evidence that, in the bill, the Scottish Government is

“pursuing the highest possible animal welfare standards”

and seeking to

“rectify what was supposed to have been done 20 years ago”.—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, 29 June 2022 ; c 2, 11.]

If the bill is to rectify the flaws in the 2002 act, there must be the minimum of exceptions and they must not be made for sporting reasons.

If members do not support the amendment to remove section 6, I direct them to amendments 123 and 146, in my name, which seek to remove falconry as a permitted use of dogs. The RAINE Committee rightly questioned the inclusion of falconry in its stage 1 report, and members asked for further information on why such an exception had been included in the scope of the bill and raised concerns about section 6(2)(e), which requires that

“the wild mammal which is being searched for, stalked or flushed is shot dead, or killed by a bird of prey”.

The Scottish Government’s response does not adequately explain how the flushing of a wild mammal to be killed by a waiting bird of prey can be considered any more humane than its being killed by a dog, and its argument that falconry is a permitted activity is even less convincing. The question is, should it be a permitted activity? From the point of view of animal welfare, the answer is very much no. I therefore urge members to support the amendments to remove falconry, at the very least, from the bill’s exceptions.

I thank the committee for considering my amendment 110, which relates to a defence for a person who is charged with the offence of hunting a wild animal with a dog.

The bill provides that

“It is a defence for a person charged with an offence ... to show that the person reasonably believed that any of the exceptions”

in the bill applied. In effect, that would require proof of the individual’s state of mind, which would on its own be difficult to evidence. My amendment 110 simply seeks to shift the emphasis on the grounds for that reasonable belief so that it is objective rather than subjective, and so that it is capable of being demonstrated by the landowner. As currently drafted, the bill would require speculation on the state of mind of a person who believed or claimed to have reasonably believed that the relevant exception would apply.

My amendment would change the emphasis from the person’s assertion of their belief to the available evidence that gave them the grounds for that reasonable belief. The requirement for evidence would not be onerous and it would depend on the specific exception. For example, the evidence could be an email to the landowner or occupier from the person who was using the dog or dogs stating that the reason why they were carrying out fox control on the land was the identification of a high level of predation of lambs there.

The term “reasonably believed” is open to interpretation and difficult to quantify, so I believe that it should be backed by a requirement for evidence. My fear is that, if we fail to include that, it could allow an unnecessary loophole. Whatever position members take on hunting, I do not believe that my amendment is in any way unreasonable. I note that the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, NFU Scotland and the National Sheep Association Scotland do not oppose it.

Edward Mountain raised the issue of who would make the judgement. It would be dealt with in the same way that, under the bill, the term “reasonably believed” would be dealt with. It would be up to the courts and others to decide whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that the exception applied. In the same way, it would be necessary to prove that the landowner “reasonably believed“ that the exception applied. My amendment would make it easier to prove than it will be if we rely on the phrase “reasonably believed”. I urge members to support amendment 110.

I support amendments 9 to 12 and 15 to 20, in the name of Ariane Burgess, which would remove section 4 from the bill. The bill as it stands would allow for a continuation of the use of packs of dogs in hunting, albeit under licence. It therefore fails to fully close the loopholes that exist in the current legislation; it merely licenses them.

I am clear that we cannot license cruelty. We cannot believe, on the one hand, that we need to limit the number of dogs to two because that reduces the risk of dogs instinctively chasing and killing, while, on the other hand, continuing to allow the use of packs of dogs simply because someone has a licence. One does not close one loophole by creating another.

I do not agree that these are wrecking amendments—in fact, what is wrecking is including licensing in a bill that seeks to end the use of packs of dogs. Alternative and more humane methods are available to manage wild mammals.

Yes.

I will try to finish answering the first intervention before doing that.

There are alternative and more humane methods available to manage wild mammals and protect the environment, and, of course, the use of two dogs would continue to be allowed.

If members do not support the amendments to remove licensing, amendments 116 and 130, in my name, would allow NatureScot to require licence applicants to meet standards in the application process that could be drawn up in line with an ethical framework such as the international consensus principles for ethical wildlife control, which is an existing international example of such standards. The principles would bring significant animal welfare benefits if embedded in Scottish Government and societal practices. They would provide a framework to guide decisions on whether, when and how wildlife interventions should take place, and they would ensure that ethical reasoning is applied, evidence is consulted and animal welfare is prioritised. Perhaps most importantly, the principles invite a shift in mindset, recognising that each animal is sentient and deserves equal consideration, regardless of the category that humans have put them in. That is a key point.

Good morning to the panel. The commission and many others have consistently called for greater clarity around the pipeline of work that is required to transition to net zero. Do we have a good understanding of the level of detail that is necessary to deliver the certainty that the industry is calling for on what work will be needed to deliver that?

I represent a very rural area—South Scotland—and I agree entirely with what Rachel McEwen said. How do we deliver that? We have a conflict. The rules might suggest that we cannot put huge conditionality on that, so how do we do that? Is it just about ensuring that our supply chains are fit for purpose and that we are investing in the ports and in companies? Is that the only route?

Ultimately, price will be the driver for renewable companies. That will be the main driver. We have the desire to see electricity produced as cheaply as possible. There is a conflict there in producing electricity cheaply and trying to use a local supply chain that is more expensive. How do we ensure that we get what Rachel McEwen and others are asking for? What policy interventions do we fundamentally need?

I appreciate that those are very detailed questions that are probably for a commission in itself.

That is interesting. Obviously, skills are one barrier, but are there any other barriers that supply chain businesses currently face in ensuring that they can access the huge work potential and that they have the workforce in place? Are there any other barriers that need to be broken down in the supply chain to ensure that they can fulfil those things?

You mentioned local content. ScotWind probably provides the best example of the opportunities that we have. The focus has been on companies effectively coming up with development plans around supply chain jobs, but I was interested in your earlier point about conditionality around local content. Should we be driving that a lot more, or should we just continue to leave it to the companies to decide how much local content they want? That appears to be the approach to ScotWind.

So the main issue is certainty about the pipeline of work. Is there anything else that we need to do to ensure that we do not make the mistakes of the past on energy in particular, which the unions are rightly concerned about? Renewable companies say, “We would like to use Scottish businesses, but ... ”. They then award the contracts to companies abroad. Apart from giving certainty about work, what other barriers do we need to break down?

Good morning to the panel. Your report of December 2020 made five specific recommendations, on improvements in sectors where performance was poor, such as agriculture and fishing; improvements for disabled workers, ethnic minorities and women; conditionality in grants; access to training; and collective bargaining.

Patricia Findlay has touched on the progress that has been made, which has been primarily on payment of the living wage. The Scottish Government has now made a commitment to link the provision of grants to payment of the living wage. That is an area where we have seen progress, but I am keen to know about the areas in which you have not yet seen it. What policy levers should the Scottish Government use to deliver such progress?