���˿���

Can Colin Smyth explain to the committee what other methods he would use in an area of woodland covering 1,000 acres?

The point of having a minimum number of guns is to close the loophole that allows people who are shooting foxes in order to control their numbers to say, “Oh, we had plenty of guns, but it just so happened that the fox slipped through”—that is the loophole in the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002.

If the licensing authority requires all those who are shooting to ensure that there is an equivalent number of guns to the number of hounds that are driving the area, the likelihood of a fox being shot is far higher than it would be if that were left to the discretion of people who could try to circumvent the law.

Surely the whole point of the bill is that we trust and respect the people who are doing the job legitimately, and therefore the working relationship between NatureScot and the people carrying out these acts is such that they understand each other and know the areas that they are working in, and they will therefore come to a compromise on how the job should be done properly.

I have been thinking for some time about the issue of the number of guns used during a hunt, and I have voiced my concern on that.

From everything that we have heard in the committee, when it comes to actually killing a wild animal in a swift and humane way, the number of guns seems to be a vital part of the process. When I asked Lord Bonomy about that during stage 1 evidence sessions, he responded—as Rachael Hamilton has just cited—by saying:

“I think that the number of guns is vital”.—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, 15 June 2022; c 47.]

One of the examples that I gave during the evidence sessions was of a person who has only two guns covering 150 yards of forestry. The fox would run straight through the middle and would not be shot. However, if the number of guns was increased to, for example, 15, it would be more likely that the fox would be shot, so the loophole of allowing dogs to hunt and kill a fox would be closed.

My amendments 171 and 191 would amend sections 4 and 8, on licence provisions, to give specific examples of the kind of information that NatureScot can ask people to provide on their applications. That would be information on the number of dogs for which people are seeking permission and the number of guns that they intend to deploy. Amendments 157, 160, 172 and 173 carry on from that by amending both licensing sections so that NatureScot would have to require a minimum number of guns to be deployed when issuing a licence and put that number on the licence. That would mean that NatureScot would look at the information provided by the applicant and would make the decision on exactly what the minimum number of guns should be.

The principle of those amendments has been widely supported by a variety of stakeholders and committee members at stage 1. Stating in the bill what information may be required will give early notice to applicants of the type of information that will be required. The amendments could also assist in filling out some of the detail of the licensing framework—in particular, the type of information that applicants may require to include in their applications.

I know that Rachael Hamilton agrees with the principle, as she has lodged amendment 21, which is very similar to mine. It would amend section 4(2)(c) to include information that the relevant authority may require. My issue with Rachael Hamilton’s amendment, and the reason why I have lodged an alternative version, is that amendment 21 talks about

“the number of dogs or guns that would be ... licensed”.

I do not think that the wording is right in that the applicant would not know how many dogs or guns would be licensed, because that is a matter for the licensing authority to decide.

My amendment makes it clear that the applicant provides the information and then the licensing authority considers that information and reaches its decision. That might be to grant a licence for the number of dogs and guns that the applicant has stated on the form, or it might be to grant a licence for a different number. My amendment keeps the flexibility for the licensing authority to do just that.

I have also included the same requirement for section 8 licences, for environmental benefit, as for section 4 licences, on wildlife management, so that the requirements are consistent. It is absolutely right that the licensing authority has the final decision-making power for those licences, as it does for all other wildlife management licences.

It is important that we are clear about what we will expect under the licensing regime, which is why I have lodged the amendments. I hope that members agree and will support my amendments.

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

If all animals are sentient, how do you justify a fox killing a lamb or several lambs in order to take a tail or an ear to give as a trinket to cubs? Do we accept the fact that foxes will kill lambs?

Yes, that is probably it.

Thank you. Sorry—I was reading my notes as you were speaking.

Okay. My final question is this. If the Government imposed a housing order, would that in itself protect the free range status? I will clarify my thinking here. If you do not mandate an order to house birds, but producers choose to house birds, they would lose their free range status after a few days. If you mandate producers to house the birds, would they maintain their free range status?

It is nice to see you both. I have a supplementary question on what Jenni Minto just raised. I clearly remember the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in 2001 and the differences between the different countries. For me—I want your opinion on this—Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales having the independence to make their own decisions was important. I get the fact that cross-border collaboration and discussion happen all the time, but how important is it to be able to make such decisions independently in your own area?