���˿���

I will just finish my point. The term “sport” distinguishes between the recreational nature of these pursuits and wildlife management for economic or environmental reasons.

I was just concluding, but I am happy to take any comments from Edward Mountain.

That will be in the eye of the beholder.

Amendments 156 and 159 from my colleague Christine Grahame seek to remove the ability of NatureScot to license “a category of persons”. I very much understand the intention to tighten up how licences can be granted. However—we have discussed this a lot this morning—I do not want to create inconsistencies with the wording of the bill, which the two amendments could do, as the approach that we have set out is as set out in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

I will try to cover each of the points that have been made in turn. On the point about “person” and what that can be taken to mean, the law already states that the word “person” would include bodies such as a company or club, so those types of bodies could be granted a licence even if the bill were amended to only include “person”.

Yes. I was just going to come on to the point about categories. The other reason why that is important is that excluding a category would prevent a situation in which a set of neighbouring farmers, perhaps with hill ground stretching between them—exactly the terrain where Lord Bonomy said the provisions would be required—would be able to do what we have discussed with them: apply for a licence that runs with the terrain, not the individual, over that area of land.

It would run with the land, not with the individuals. NatureScot would receive an application for an area of land, it would consider the terrain—that being one of the main considerations—and it would determine whether it was suitable to grant a licence over that land.

The point about who would be liable in the case of a breach of conditions is important. That will always be the person or people who are undertaking the activity. Under section 1(4), those undertaking the activity will be everyone involved, not just those who are controlling the dog. As concerns applications for categories of persons, those liable would still be the people undertaking the activity. Likewise, if a farmer had applied for an agency to undertake the work, it would be in the first instance the agency—the folks on the ground who were undertaking the activity—who would be liable for any breach of licence conditions.

I would add that there are ancillary provisions in the bill that might catch the farmer in those circumstances if they had knowingly permitted illegal activity to take place on their land.

I would be happy to meet you to explain it further.

That might be the case in certain circumstances, but it would be for—

Yes. [Interruption.]

I do not appreciate the whispering across the room.

It was 205 and 232.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 22 seeks to change one of the tests for granting a licence from

“there is no other solution which would be effective”

to “there is no other solution which would be practical”. I have considered that very closely. To simply substitute “practical” for “effective” could significantly weaken a key licensing test, so I cannot support that today. However, I accept that there are situations in which a solution would be effective—say, in preventing predation from taking place—but might not be practical to achieve. For example, building and maintaining a high fox-proof fence around a large field might be effective in keeping foxes out, but there is a question about whether it would be practical to achieve for the farmers who would be involved.

On the other hand, it could be argued that, for a solution to be considered effective, it is implied that it would be practical. However, I would like to give further thought to that and, if necessary, come back with an amendment at stage 3 to cover those points.

Amendments 206, 210, 233 and 235, in Rachael Hamilton’s name, would allow a licensing authority to specify any number of dogs rather than the minimum number that would be effective. I do not support those amendments. The requirement for the licensing authority to specify the maximum number of dogs that are to be used is an important safeguard to maintain the tightly construed licensing scheme that we want. With any other approach, we would risk creating loopholes, and that must be avoided. Having the minimum number specified by the licensing authority is consistent with our approach of ensuring that we use more than two dogs only when there is no other effective solution.

Amendments 23 and 34, in Rachael Hamilton’s name, which were earlier alternative amendments to 206, 210, 233 and 235, would adjust the wording of the test rather than delete it altogether. I repeat that the requirement for the licensing authority to specify the maximum number of dogs that are to be used is in our view an important safeguard that we will seek to maintain, so we cannot support those amendments.

I support amendments 157, 160, 172 and 173, in the name of Jim Fairlie, for all the reasons that have been stipulated. For the sake of time, therefore—if Jim Fairlie does not mind—I will move on.

Amendments 116 and 130, in the name of Colin Smyth, would amend sections 4 and 8 respectively. They propose that applications for a licence to use more than two dogs should be subject to adherence to a set of standards. There has been some discussion about that. I am sympathetic to the intention behind these amendments and I listened closely to what Colin Smyth had to say.

I know that NatureScot has looked closely at the international ethical principles of wildlife management and examined how those compare to its own shared approach, which, again, has been discussed. I have confidence in the shared approach, not least because it was discussed and developed over a long period of time and brought together a range of diverse stakeholders around points on which they could coalesce.

However, the main point that I put to Colin Smyth today is that the Scottish Government is shortly to commission a review of licensed wildlife management, which will look at welfare aspects and may recommend changes across the board. As previously discussed with regard to fees, I am reluctant to make changes to a particular category when a larger piece of work, which will look at the issues as a whole, is coming down the track. For that reason, I cannot support amendments 116 and 130.

I turn to amendments 207, 208, 24 and 25, in the name of Rachael Hamilton. I am not persuaded by these amendments. I think that a year is too long for the validity of a particular licence, bearing in mind the need to maintain tight control. The deletion of a maximum period through amendments 207 and 208 would appear to remove the licensing authority’s ability to license fewer than 14 dogs and would require it to license 14 dogs, which we could not support. I am sorry; I mean 14 days—I am getting confused now. We therefore cannot support these amendments either.

Having said that, I am aware that there is concern about the time period over which the 14 days could be used. I have listened carefully to the discussions on the licensing period in section 3 and to the evidence that the committee has heard. I remain of the view that 14 days is the correct maximum number of days for a licence to cover. I am persuaded, however, that there could be more flexibility around the period in which those 14 days could be used. I propose a maximum number of 14 days to be used in a period of six months. Again, that does not allow any more days of activity, but it allows for flexibility to deal with things such as a change of plans, bad weather and unforeseen events.

Amendments 211 and 236, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, would insert the word “other” into licensing provisions in section 4 and section 8 respectively, so that, where the bill says that licences

“must specify ... any conditions to which the licence is subject”,

the wording would be changed to read “any other conditions”.

I understand the intention, but the thinking is incorrect, as it confuses what those subsections are. They are not conditions—they list the information that must be specified in the licence. The amendments would therefore not work, and I ask Rachael Hamilton not to move them.

I turn to Christine Grahame’s amendment 161 and the point about publication of a register of licences under section 4. I am sympathetic to that; transparency in how licences operate is always desirable. NatureScot already successfully shares a lot of information on wildlife management licences, not least—as has been seen recently—in detailed reporting on the operation of the licences to manage beavers, so there is a precedent. There are also plans to publish data on all of NatureScot’s licences, but we need to work carefully through the general data protection regulation legislation in order to do that in a way that is legally watertight and does not undermine the GDPR.

That being the case, and having listened to the exchanges, I will continue to consider Christine Grahame’s points, and I assure her today that I will commit to going as far as possible within the remit of the GDPR to publish what it is that she is asking for.