���˿���

It sounds like that was very constructive. Do you have a sense of how regular the meetings will be?

That concludes our questions. We appreciate you all joining us this morning for that useful and informative discussion. We have a little more time. If you have anything final that you want to make sure that we hear, you are welcome to speak now.

Thank you very much.

We agreed at the start of the meeting to take the next three items in private so, as we have no more public business, I close the public part of the meeting.

You do not need to touch your microphone. We have a wonderful person here to operate all that for us.

Under agenda item 2, the committee will take evidence on the local governance review. We will hear from two panels of witnesses. First, we are joined online by Councillor Shaun Macaulay, deputy leader, North Ayrshire Council; Councillor Alex Nicoll, co-leader, Aberdeen City Council; and Councillor James Stockan, leader, Orkney Islands Council. We are joined in the room by Councillor Euan Jardine, leader, Scottish Borders Council; and Councillor David Ross, leader, Fife Council. I welcome our witnesses to the meeting.

Committee members will direct their questions to specific witnesses where possible. However, if anyone else wishes to come in, please indicate your desire to do so to the clerks. Those who are participating remotely can do that by typing an R in the chat box in BlueJeans.

I will begin with a question to set the foundation of our conversation, so I will direct it to all of you. Thinking broadly about the current challenges that local government faces, I would be interested in hearing about some of the biggest challenges that your local authority faces and what you would like to see in this week’s budget to help to address them and improve outcomes in your local areas.

I will start with somebody who is in the room and then go to the folks online. Would David Ross like to start? It looked like you were ready to go for it.

I thank Jenni Minto, Colin Smyth, Rachael Hamilton and Edward Mountain for lodging amendments in the group. As I explained, I support Jenni Minto’s and Colin Smyth’s amendments, which would serve to improve animal welfare. However, to achieve the highest possible standards of animal welfare, we would need to remove section 5 completely, so I urge members to vote for my amendments in the group.

I cannot support Edward Mountain’s or Rachael Hamilton’s amendments in the group, the majority of which serve to expand the exception and loosen the loophole. The exceptions to the bill should be as few as possible and as narrowly defined as possible to avoid loopholes and situations in which wild animals might suffer.

The minister raised concerns that no other, more humane methods have been put to her. I am aware of the concerns that removing the exception for foxes could lead to an increase in other cruel practices that were mentioned, such as snaring, blocking up of holes or even poisoning. However, we should not be afraid to legislate against cruel practices for fear of other cruel practices being used. We should legislate against all of those cruel practices, ensure that the legislation is enforced and support land managers to adopt more ethical practices that are also more effective for the long term.

For example, the RSPB does not use dogs to flush foxes, and nor does it use snaring. Instead, it uses trained marksmen to shoot foxes, on the ground that it is the most humane and efficient method of necessary fox control. That is why the bill should encourage the use of wildlife management methods that align with the seven principles of ethical wildlife control. I will look to ensure that an amendment on that is lodged at stage 3.

I thank the minister, and I thank other members for lodging amendments in the group. I appreciated hearing their perspectives. To clarify, my amendments are not wrecking amendments; rather, they are intended to legislate for the highest possible standard of animal welfare in a modern Scotland.

I agree with Christine Grahame’s comments about having a public register of licence holders. The intention would not be to victimise them; it would be to ensure accountability and responsibility. A public register of licence holders was one of the recommendations made during consultation on the member’s bill on protecting Scotland’s wild mammals, which was introduced by Alison Johnstone in the previous session, and I fully support that.

The minister raised the need for farmers to protect their livestock, and I fully understand and sympathise with farmers’ need to minimise the loss of lambs and other livestock, but the bill will not prevent farmers from taking action to control animals that are predating on their livestock or crops. It even allows lethal control. However, the bill puts humane conditions on how that is done, to ensure the least suffering by the smallest number of animals.

I agree with Colin Smyth that we need to rethink the false assumption that killing wild animals is the best way to protect livestock, and I welcome his comments about the ethical principles. I fully support the idea that, if the licence scheme is to be retained in the bill, the licence conditions should be aligned as closely as possible with the best practice of ethical wildlife management, such as the international consensus principles of ethical wildlife control or RSPB Scotland’s vertebrate control policy.

However, Colin Smyth’s amendments 116 and 130 are not specific enough and refer to

“a set of standards based on ethical principles”.

The committee heard NatureScot trying to reassure us that its shared approach to wildlife management is already

“fairly well aligned with the ethical principles”,—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, 22 June 2022; c 24.]

so it could simply require licence holders to align with its existing approach. NatureScot’s shared approach is supported by pro-hunting organisations including the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the Scottish Countryside Alliance, the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust in Scotland and Scottish Land & Estates. That implies that the shared approach would perpetuate the status quo rather than encourage behaviour change and increase protection for wildlife.

I will support Colin Smyth’s amendments at this stage, but I would like to work with him, with Government or with other parties before stage 3 to amend this area of the bill further to require closer alignment with actual best practice in ethical wildlife control while ensuring that that requirement is workable in practice and can align with the outcome of the species licensing review, as the minister has mentioned.

I will press amendment 9.

No, I will continue.

The SSPCA and the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission gave evidence about the distress that is suffered by hunted rabbits. I understand the concerns that have been raised about the impact on rough shooting, whereby multiple dogs are used to flush quarry species. We have taken additional evidence on the bill’s impacts on that activity. I note that both Police Scotland and the League Against Cruel Sports highlighted the risk that including an exception for rabbits could create a smokescreen for illegal hunts with packs of dogs under the guise of rough shooting.

I was making a point about mink.

As I said in my statement, rabbits are sentient beings and I think that they should be protected. We took a great deal of evidence on that during our committee hearings.