���˿���

As it stands, I believe that the bill limits the environmental benefit exception to situations in which the use of dogs—whether two dogs or more than two dogs under licence—is “part of a scheme”. It seems unnecessarily burdensome, given that land managers often undertake pest control to protect and enhance wildlife. I have no idea why they should have to come up with a scheme. The bill does not define what amounts to a scheme; it is not clear from the evidence sessions or from the documents accompanying the bill, but a scheme is currently conceived of in terms of the work of NatureScot, RSPB Scotland and other large bodies.

I am still concerned about the idea of a scheme. Most managers have a land management plan—is that a scheme? If they wish to use more than two dogs, what amounts to such a scheme? In terms of a licence for environmental benefit, surely it is sufficient that NatureScot should be happy that the use of more than two dogs is necessary and will make a significant contribution to environmental benefit.

With regard to the loss of biodiversity, it is strange that we would want anyone to discourage wildlife management that assists in nature recovery or to limit it to statutory bodies and charities when the vast majority of land is held and managed privately. If ministers are serious about reversing biodiversity loss and saving species such as the curlew and capercaillie, we must work with land managers, not against them, to ensure that, in such situations, livelihoods are protected and wildlife is managed in order to protect livestock.

I press amendment 243.

There is a very good reason why Christine Grahame is not here to speak to her amendment, but I would have liked to hear what she had to say.

As she is not here, I will say that my amendment 174A would amend Christine Grahame’s amendment on the laying of a scent. The inclusion of the world “reckless” in amendment 174 is excessively restrictive and unhelpful. It would adversely affect any type of hunting a scent, so much so that it might not be legally possibly to lay a scent for dogs to follow with every confidence that they would not stray off that scent. The term “reckless” could easily be used and abused by anti-hunting or anti-shooting organisations. If the term were removed, I would be happy to support the rest of Christine Grahame’s amendment, but she is not here to answer to that, which is slightly unfortunate.

Amendments 237 and 238 address trail hunting in the bill more broadly. I struggle to find any examples in the history of legislation where it was proposed that a lawful activity should be banned on the basis that it might be used as a cover for any unlawful activity. Those amendments reflect that and amendment 237 would remove the provision for an outright ban on trail hunting. Section 12 would, therefore, not be necessary, so amendment 238 would remove it.

It is surprising that the penalty for an offence under part 2 of the bill will be set at the same level as that for the most serious welfare and wildlife crime offences. That seems disproportionate and fails to recognise the fundamental difference in the gravity of the offences.

Amendments 239 to 241 seek to address the Law Society of Scotland’s concerns with regard to the provisions allowing ministers to amend the legislation or any enactment in the future, subject to a positive resolution from the Parliament. It is felt that these powers are too extensive and, on the requirement for the affirmative procedure to be used, there is no substitute for the full debate and scrutiny that primary legislation receives. In its evidence to the committee, the Law Society of Scotland told us that, at the very least, there should be some requirement for consultation, and it was felt that concerns about the extent of the ministerial powers that were being sought were not properly reflected in the committee’s stage 1 report. My amendments therefore seek to remove these ministerial powers to allow for proper debate of any further amendments to the legislation.

I move amendment 239.

Just for the record, when the minister talks about the evidence, is she referring to Detective Sergeant Telford’s opinion or other evidence from Police Scotland?

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.