Seòmar agus comataidhean

Can you cite that evidence now?

I have been quite vocal on this issue when we have discussed the exception for environmental benefit, both last week and in relation to some of the amendments that I have spoken to earlier today.

This is specifically about the application of the environmental benefit exception to situations where there is the use of dogs—whether two dogs or more than two dogs under licence—as part of a scheme. I reiterate that I believe that that requirement is unnecessarily burdensome given that land managers often undertake pest control to protect and enhance wildlife. Why should they have to come up with a scheme?

What amounts to a scheme is not defined in the bill, and it is not clear from the evidence sessions or the documents accompanying the bill that a scheme is currently conceived of in terms of the work of all the bodies that are responsible for delivering these licensing schemes. If the land manager wants to use two dogs for environmental purposes, that should possibly be part of the scheme. If they wish to use more than two dogs, what amounts to a scheme?

In terms of a licence for environmental benefit, surely it is sufficient that NatureScot is happy that the use of more than two dogs is necessary and will make a significant contribution to an environmental benefit. Again, at a time when we face the points that I have made in previous sessions regarding biodiversity loss, which is so important right now, and when we are trying to meet climate change targets, I believe that people should be encouraged and supported in relation to wildlife management in order to assist in nature recovery. If we want to reverse biodiversity loss and save iconic species, we must work with the individuals who manage Scotland’s wildlife—at no cost to the public purse. The bill in its current form seems designed to make vital wildlife management harder, if not impossible, in many situations, therefore harming farmers and their livelihoods, and wildlife—not to mention the welfare of livestock.

I move amendment 229.

Amendment 242 seeks to amend section 22 by adding a phrase that was included in the 2002 act in recognition of the fact that there will be, and will need to be, occasions when trained dogs—that is, working dogs—will be in situations in which it will not be possible to direct their activity by physical contact or by verbal or audible command. I am thinking of, for example, large areas of forestry, certain weather conditions or activities below ground. As they are trained working dogs, that does not mean that they are not “under control”. In addition, the committee also received evidence that, in some situations, it might be important that the person using the dog is not directing them by making a noise or engaging physically, as in the case of a dog below ground. As being “under control” is a key condition throughout the bill for all excepted activity to be lawful, it is essential that it is not defined in a way that could make exceptions unworkable, at least in situations in which the use of dogs is necessary.

I want to explain why I have lodged amendment 244, which seeks to define the term “pack” for the purposes of the bill. Last week, I asked the minister to put on record comments on the types of dogs that work on a rough shoot and on the specific point of dogs forming a pack. She responded by saying:

“for the purposes of the bill, a pack is defined: it is more than two dogs.”

Moreover, she was

“happy to put on the record”

her understanding

“that dogs that are generally used in rough shooting, such as gun dogs, are well trained and do not chase or form packs.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, 7 December 2022; c 38.]

However, I want to challenge the minister on that point, because I believe that she contradicted herself, hence the need for an amendment to determine the difference between dogs that form a pack, such as hounds, and gun dogs, which, as she clearly stated, do not form a pack. I have therefore lodged amendment 244 to ensure that the Scottish Government clarifies the definition of “pack” and recognises that gun dogs do not form a pack.

I hope that the amendment is helpful to the minister. If the minister would like to work with me on the definition, because she feels that it is an important clarification, I would be very happy to do so.

I have a practical question about food safety. What if the consumer does not understand that poultry has been frozen and defrosted? Is Food Standards Scotland taking any extra care to ensure that they do not refreeze it?

Okay. Thank you.

I agree that amendment 170 clarifies that

“preserving, protecting or restoring a particular species”

through controlling species predators can also be “for environmental benefit”. I believe that the minister’s amendments are in a similar vein to mine in this group. It is vital that we acknowledge the environmental benefits that can be conferred by allowing predators to be controlled in a suitable manner. I therefore urge other committee members to vote for the amendment, and I certainly support it.

On the minister’s comments regarding what constitutes a scheme, I welcome the fact that she will seek to clarify that in the planning and design of the licensing guidance. I will press amendment 229, because I believe that it is important to have that particular point in the text of the bill, and I urge other members to support the amendment.

I know that you will not accept another intervention, but I did want to ask whether you think that a rat is a sentient being.

Rough shooting has been very much in the spotlight during the past few committee sessions. From the outset, it has been abundantly clear that we need an exception for rough shooting. The British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the Scottish Countryside Alliance, the Scottish Gamekeepers Association and others have put forward credible, well-evidenced and legitimate points as to why rough shooting should continue, unhindered, through an exception.

During the round-table session, the issue of enforcement and proportionality was raised. BASC noted that there was a “good working relationship” with Police Scotland. However, Peter Clark from BASC and others noted that they felt that the drafting of the bill meant they could not conduct a rough shoot with confidence or without “vexatious allegations” over the breach of the two-dog limit. That is what amendment 142 and consequential amendments in my name seek to address.

I am mindful, as are BASC and others, that such an exception should never be a loophole, now or in the future. Those in the shooting community want to continue their lawful, legitimate activity without fear of vexatious allegations. They want to see the highest standards of animal welfare, and, by allowing an exception for rough shooting, they can continue that activity.

Amendment 142 recognises that, during a rough shoot, one, two or more dogs may be present; however, not all dogs are working simultaneously, due to the presence of a beating line and standing guns. Dogs do not form a literal pack as hounds do. Spaniels, Labradors and other gun dogs are not pack dogs, as the minister recognised in her response to the evidence at stage 1.

The word “intention” comes into play in the proposed new subsection (3). It has been made clear by the rural organisations that, during a rough shoot, there is no intention for dogs to form a pack, unlike in traditional hunting.

Amendment 142 provides an exception that cannot be used as a loophole, on the following basis. Flushing is the only activity during a rough shoot, involving the quick and humane dispatch of game birds and rabbits. BASC raised the point that

“there is no chasing or killing ... with dogs”.—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, 22 November 2022; c 3.]

Hunting with a licence is an activity that requires more than flushing, and anyone who tried to use the exception as a loophole would therefore fall foul of its provisions at the first hurdle.

In the proposed new subsection (3) in my amendment 142, I make it clear that such an activity is a “mixed quarry” day. An illegal hunt would seek to kill only wild mammals; no birds would be taken during a hunt. That is a key differentiation, and, yet again, anyone who was seeking to hunt with more than two dogs illegally for the purposes of chasing would have to apply for a licence.

Taking all of that into consideration, I would welcome the minister’s thoughts on my concerns and the concerns of the organisations, and on how, if she will not support an exception, she might later amend the bill to ensure that rough shooting is protected. It is vital that we get the bill right for rough shooting.

Excuse me, convener—I just need to check that I am speaking to amendments 133, 135, 137, 139 and 143, too.

What are the animal welfare implications of rough shooting? You seemed to say that the activities compromise animal welfare.

I would like you to put on record your comments with regard to the types of dogs that are working in a rough shoot and my specific points on dogs forming a pack. As has been discussed in previous evidence sessions, the types of dogs that are used in rough shoots, such as spaniels and other working dogs, are not trained to work in a pack as is the case with other dogs that are trained specifically to work as a team. There are quite a lot of anomalies here with regard to the differences in the activities. To my mind, the provision is not proportionate, because there is no definition of a pack, and working dogs do not work in a pack.