���˿���

Yes, but specifically.

This morning, we received a letter from the minister. As it was, regrettably, received very late, I have not had the opportunity to fully absorb it. However, it addresses what will happen with regard to the licensing and what NatureScot will do to engage with stakeholders.

It says that

“NatureScot is committed to a ‘shared wildlife management principles’ approach to stakeholder engagement.”

It does not sound as though Colin Smyth accepts that NatureScot is committed to those principles. He seems to want to go further, albeit that we all know that the intention of the bill is to maintain the highest standards of animal welfare. What do Labour members not appreciate about the shared wildlife management principles?

Will Ariane Burgess take an intervention?

I want to get some clarity on that. You want to remove section 6, but you said that you believe that rural people or rural life—I cannot remember your exact words—should or must change. Does that mean that you want to see a full ban on all country activities that include shooting, rough shooting and anything else? Is that the intention?

Thank you.

Do you think that removing rabbits from the group that are defined as being wild mammals would have an environmental benefit?

Having listened to Colin Smyth’s explanation of the reasoning behind his amendments, I believe that it shows a lack of understanding of management in the countryside. What he proposes would pull the rug from underneath the feet of farmers who want to protect their livelihoods and is completely unnecessary.

With regard to the minister’s comments on damage to crops, livestock and woodland, I do not believe that the proposed removal of the word “serious” is overreaching. She did not describe it as that, but I do not believe that the issue that the amendment seeks to deal with is a trivial one. Amendment 35 would ensure that farmers could protect their livelihoods within the parameters of the Scottish Government’s bill, which the minister has always said she wanted to be practical and workable. We need to ensure that, when we consider proposed legislation, we understand the ramifications for—particularly in the current circumstances—farmers and their ability to use the methods that are within their reach to protect their livelihoods.

Therefore, I am slightly disappointed that the minister has not accepted my point.

Thank you for explaining that, because I was a bit alarmed when I heard the word “trivial”.

I press amendment 35.

On your point about the public wanting to ban fox hunting, is fox hunting not already banned?

Amendments 204, 209, 231 and 234 seek to clarify that a licence may be granted to categories of individuals that suggest some shared characteristic and groups of people, even where they do not necessarily amount to a category. There might be situations in which disparate individuals might need to apply for a licence jointly. As the committee heard in evidence, there might be different types of landholding that require fox control across various holdings if control is to be effective. There is no use in granting a licence to a livestock holding that does not cover adjacent land under different ownership that is without livestock but with large areas of forestry or other cover that act as a reservoir for foxes that predate on neighbouring livestock. The bill must allow sufficient scope for NatureScot to issue licences on the basis of need, whether to individuals, groups or categories of persons.

Amendment 205 is a relatively minor amendment that would allow NatureScot to issue a licence that would cover more than one species. As drafted, the bill states that a licence must be for “a particular species” instead of “particular species”. The amendment would ensure that the bill does not unnecessarily restrict NatureScot’s ability to issue licences as needed and that are practical.

Amendment 22 relates to the consideration of alternative methods of predator control. In oral evidence to the committee, it was stated that effectiveness is to be understood as relating to whether alternatives are practical and possible. There must be clarity in the bill that that is the case and that alternatives that might be effective would not necessarily be practical or affordable. It is important to avoid NatureScot facing legal challenges to licences that have been issued on the basis that it has failed to meet what amounts to a test where it must be satisfied that there is no alternative that would be effective. What really matters is whether the use of more than two dogs is necessary and whether that would make a significant contribution to the purpose for which a licence is granted.

The proposed new wording through amendment 22 would recognise, as the current wording does not, that the use of dogs to flush to guns under licence does not mean that other methods of fox control would not carry through alongside licenced control using dogs. Indeed, control is normally achieved using a combination of methods that complement one another and can be used concurrently. There is a danger of thinking that it is an either/or scenario; the reality is that successful fox control involves a variety of methods. Which methods are used; when, where and how they are used; and the combination of methods that are used at any given time will depend on terrain and other considerations that are best decided by the people who conduct the control of wildlife management on the ground.

Amendments 206, 23, 210, 34, 233 and 235 relate to a legal duty on NatureScot that it simply cannot discharge. NatureScot could not rationally reach a decision on the minimum number of dogs that were required for a given task. For example, on what evidential basis could it make a decision to allow eight dogs but not 10 dogs and that it should be eight and not seven or six dogs? Moreover, a person with a licence might be using dogs over a variety of terrain and cover, even on a single landholding. In relatively open country with limited cover, six dogs might be sufficient, but a far greater number might be required for a 1,000-acre block of forestry, for example.

The amendments would remove that burden—and the obvious risk of legal challenge to licences—and replace it with a more workable solution. It is proposed that a condition of the licence is that the people who are licensed use only the number of dogs that is appropriate in the circumstances. I think that that is part of the nature of the bill. That could be reinforced by a reporting requirement so that, if required, a person would have to explain and justify their decision on how many dogs to deploy at a given time and place.

Amendments 207, 208 and 24 would extend the period of time during which a 14-day licence could be used from 14 days to 12 months from the date on which the licence was granted. That would allow the licence to be used on a given number of days as part of the continuous process of predator control. It reflects what was accepted by all sides in oral evidence, which is that control is preventative, not simply in response to damage having been suffered.

The existing wording fails to recognise this reality that fox control is a year-round activity and that it is conducted using a variety of methods, depending on factors such as terrain and the time of year. Creating a fair and workable licensing regime, as has been described by the minister, is vital if effective fox control is to remain possible across larger parts of rural Scotland. Those amendments will help to achieve that.

During evidence to our committee, several witnesses, including the minister, noted that it was not possible to specify in the licence the number of guns to be deployed. It is hard to understand how NatureScot must specify the number of dogs and how it is rational to determine a specific number of dogs but not guns. For both the number of dogs and the number of guns, what is appropriate will depend on the circumstances. As with dogs, it should be a requirement that a licensed person is to be responsible for ensuring that an appropriate number of guns are deployed. That could be reinforced by a reporting requirement so that, if required, the person would have to explain and justify their decision about how many guns were deployed at a given time and place.

Lord Bonomy was also of the opinion that the number of dogs was not a problem and that reducing it to two would not change the situation other than by bringing the practice of flushing to guns to an end. Instead, he said that having a sufficient number of guns was the thing that mattered most. In Lord Bonomy’s words:

“I think that the number of guns is vital. As I have said, the different way that the foot packs went about it did not seem to me to involve a chase”.—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, 15 June 2022; c 47.]

Amendments 211 and 236 reflect that there are statutory conditions that apply to all licences, but there may be other additional conditions that are not explicitly required by the legislation, including ones that relate to the statutory conditions themselves.

Amendment 25 would provide a definition of an “approved professional body” in the bill for clarification on that point. It would also require ministers to create a code of practice for the purpose of a licensing scheme. That is because a definition of an approved professional body alongside a code of practice is required for the licensing scheme to function effectively. Licence holders would be expected to adhere to the code, and it would set out what was expected of them.

Amendment 232 would mean that, as would be the case with rough shooting, a licence holder would be able to specify more than one species of wild mammal when making an application. As the committee heard in evidence from BASC, a licence applicant could be dealing with more than one pest species at a time, but the bill as drafted would not make allowances for that. This amendment circumvents that issue.

Amendment 33 relates to the condition in the bill that the relevant authority may not issue a licence unless it is satisfied that

“killing, capturing or observing the wild mammal will contribute towards a significant or long-term environmental benefit, and ... that there is no other solution which would be effective in achieving the purpose set out in section 7(2) in relation to which the application for a licence is being made”.

That part of the bill is unnecessarily prohibitive. I have already discussed the matter of whether hunting with dogs should be a last resort, as this section would require. However, I am proposing an amendment that is less prohibitive while still showing that the aims as set out in section 7(2) would be met.

As I have already said, using dogs to help to control predators and pest species is often the most practical solution, and they can be used in tandem with other control methods for maximum efficiency. It is less practical to propose, as the bill does, that this should be an all-or-nothing choice between maximum control and inadequate control, depending on those arbitrary conditions. Amendment 33 would allow the right balance to be struck by the licensing scheme.