Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will finish my point first.

The approach should be to discuss it with all stakeholders, including those involved in wildlife management and those involved in animal welfare. As part of that—they are very small amendments—the direction of travel should be to follow ethical principles in developing a licensing scheme.

I would turn the question round and ask any member to look at the seven ethical principles—I have given an example—and say which of them should not guide the process when it comes to an application.

My standpoint on this group is that I do not support the use of dogs below ground to control wild animals. The bill seeks to limit the number of dogs to one, with the unrealistic idea that the dog would be controlled. However, if it is cruel to use two dogs underground, it is clearly cruel to use any dog at all. I am not surprised, therefore, that the committee, in its stage 1 report, stated:

“It is not clear ... that the use of dogs at all below ground is compatible with the Bill’s pursuit of the highest possible animal welfare”.

In my view, it is not compatible, and I hope that amendment 13, in the name of Ariane Burgess, which seeks to remove that exception, and which I support, is successful, along with consequential amendments 1, 3, 5 and 7.

Amendment 117, in my name, which would be relevant only if that exception were not removed, seeks to deal with the fact that the exception in the bill for the use of dogs underground applies to a person using a dog below ground to “search for” or “flush” a wild animal

“with the intention of killing it”.

However, it does not specify how they should intend to kill the mammal.

Amendment 117 specifies that the intention should be to dispatch the animal “by shooting”. It seeks to require explicitly that there is no intention for the dog to kill the wild mammal, although by specifying that the intention is to dispatch the wild mammal by shooting, it ensures that a more humane method of killing than being killed by a dog is used should the wild mammal emerge from under the ground. It also avoids a possible cover story should a wild mammal be flushed from underground and then a dog be used to kill the wild mammal. Edward Mountain says that he believes that the wild mammal would be shot. The amendment seeks to state in the bill that it should be shot.

Amendment 117 therefore seeks to avoid not only the deliberate killing of wild animals by dogs but the creation of another unnecessary loophole. I therefore urge members to support amendment 117.

I believe that the amendment is already clear, and I would find it quite disturbing if we were arguing that somebody would carry out shooting in any circumstances in a way that was in any way dangerous to anyone. I am happy to listen to the debate, if members believe that my wording is not clear, but I personally believe that it is.

It is important to note that the amendment would be an addition to section 5(1), which refers to using a dog

“to flush a fox or a mink from below ground”.

That is the context for the proposed reference to killing the animal “immediately by shooting” should it emerge. The key point of the amendment is that the current wording of the bill simply states:

“with the intention of killing it for one or more of the purposes set out in subsection (2)”.

It does not specify how that animal should be killed, and my concern is that dogs could be used in those circumstances, which goes against the whole purpose of the bill.

It is interesting that Jim Fairlie raises that point when there is no definition in the licensing scheme of the example that he gives. That is one of the weaknesses of the licensing scheme: it is not clear about exactly when packs of dogs will or will not be allowed to be used.

I think that we accept that. I do not think that the bill suggests that we should not control predatory behaviour by animals—no one is proposing that. However, that does not mean that the animal is not sentient. I would have thought that every member recognises that all animals are living, breathing creatures that feel pain and suffer. I think that that is a basic thing that any human being would recognise.

I have heard it argued that we do not need this ethical approach, because the NatureScot position statement on wildlife welfare and the shared approach to wildlife management that NatureScot currently uses to guide its decision making in the area are sufficient. That is a bit of a red herring—it seems to be more of an excuse for not supporting my amendments rather than a credible explanation. If you compare the seven international consensus principles for ethical wildlife control with those two current policies, you will see that the latter are outdated and simply do not go far enough, and I think that the Government recognises that in its thinking on, for example, the coming changes to deer management.

The current policies are commendable statements of intent, but they are not a proper framework that will act as a guide for decision making in any application process. In contrast, the seven principles can easily be converted into seven questions in any licence application process, literally providing a step-by-step protocol to follow when a potential problem is identified and a decision on how to approach it must be made.

Crucially, NatureScot’s definition of wildlife welfare is outdated. It contains no recognition of sentience. Although I think that it would be perfectly logical—this would be my preference—to say specifically that the ethical principles should be the international consensus principles for ethical wildlife control, my amendment 116 does not do that; it simply says that ethical principles should be used. I believe that such ethical principles could be drawn up by NatureScot, working with those involved in wildlife management, animal welfare charities and others when developing the licensing scheme.

One criticism of the bill is that there is a lack of detail about what would guide the licence application process, and my amendments would help to overcome that by setting a clear direction of travel. Anyone who is considering an application under a licensing scheme that follows ethical principles has nothing to be concerned about because, frankly, if they cannot justify the licence on ethical grounds, they should not have a licence in the first place.

I have outlined exactly—

I will not confuse the two, because we are dealing specifically with the bill. My reference was to the fact that, in the Government’s proposals for upcoming changes to deer management, it recognises that it needs to go beyond existing policy.

I think that I have covered all the points that have been made. As I said, one criticism of the bill is that there is a lack of detail. My amendments 116 and 130 would set a direction of travel for the discussions on that lack of detail. I have been very clear that the amendments are quite tight. They do not specify all seven of the ethical principles—I gave an example of one that could be incorporated—but they set a direction of travel that ethical principles should direct any licence application process.

I would be happy to work with any member on the practicalities of that, if the amendments are not agreed to. However, I urge members first to support amendments to remove the licensing scheme from the bill; failing that, I urge them to support amendments to include the ethical principles for wildlife management to ensure that the licensing scheme is as robust as possible.

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.