Seòmar agus comataidhean

I think that we heard plenty of evidence from a lot of stakeholders, but the main premise of the bill is to tighten up legislation and ensure that we have the highest animal welfare standards in Scotland. I do not believe—and others agree with me—that chasing down a wild rabbit with dogs fits with those high standards in Scotland.

The bill is part of a wider package that addresses the issues. The stakeholder and public consultation on the definition of “wild mammal” highlighted that those who are suspected of undertaking hare coursing, which is an illegal activity under the 2002 act, frequently use the cover that they are legally using dogs to hunt rabbits. As always, the committee has scrutinised the bill and deliberated, but it is key to enforcement that we build a greater level of public awareness of poaching and coursing as serious wildlife crimes. We must continue to build working relationships and communications and to share information between all agencies and organisations.

As a committee, we have also recognised that a degree of flexibility is required to meet individual contexts and circumstances. I doubt that I am alone in recalling the submission to us from Lord Bonomy that the two-dog limit could affect predator control,

“particularly on rough and hilly ground and in extensive areas of dense cover such as conifer woodlands.”

One size does not fit all, and the addition of a licensing scheme to enable the use of more than two dogs in certain circumstances is a viable approach, as the bill acknowledges.

Following this debate, there will rightly be a series of stakeholder engagement meetings, which will follow the shared wildlife management principles, to provide an open platform for stakeholders to discuss the subject and provide expertise on the development of such licensing schemes.

There has been a profound amount of work on the bill at committee level, but the time that I have to speak to it is, of course, limited.

Having packs of dogs kill and chase animals such as foxes has no place in modern Scotland. The practice has been illegal for 20 years, but a number of loopholes need to be addressed to end it once and for all, and the bill facilitates that.

I do. I agree with the member in that regard. They can cause damage. However, as we heard in committee, there are other ways of controlling rabbits, and we need to look at those other options that do not involve them being hunted down with dogs. In Scotland, we need to set the highest standards for animal welfare.

As a member of the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, I am pleased to participate in the debate and in our deliberations. It is true to say that the committee has endorsed the general principles of the bill and that the evidence from stakeholders has been constructive and supportive. For example, NFU Scotland stressed the need to maintain effective, practical and pragmatic control of wild animals in the farming and crofting contexts and the League Against Cruel Sports Scotland rightly pointed out the flaws in the legislation from 20 years ago.

The challenges that are inevitably posed by definitions have loomed large in our consideration of the bill. There is a dilemma in deploying an inclusive and open-ended approach by way of extending terminology because there is potential for unintended consequences. That is a balancing act, but it has been successfully achieved in the bill.

As part of that balancing act, we are determined to close loopholes that might be exploited by those who wish to continue using dogs to chase and kill wild animals while, on the other hand, we recognise the need for the effective protection of livestock and wildlife from predation where there is no option other than using more than two dogs.

The evidence that the committee received from the police and the Crown Office has been invaluable, not least with regard to hare coursing, which remains a serious concern in Scotland. The inclusion of rabbits within the definition of “wild mammal” in the bill is part of a wider package that addresses that issue.

How will the Scottish Government continue to keep the invaluable voices and lived experience of the women and families of Moray central to its decision making as we move forward?

I will put a rural slant on the debate, as tenants in rural and coastal areas, such as those in my constituency, will be reassured by the emergency measures in the bill. A temporary freeze on rents and a moratorium on evictions during the winter period will be welcome, I am sure, especially due to the cost of living crisis, which is hitting people in those areas particularly hard.

The bill will also supply much-needed clarity for stakeholders, including housing charities, which have to deal on the front line with the humanitarian crisis that we face. The term “humanitarian crisis” is not an exaggeration.

A multifaceted crisis in the winter months is something that rural and coastal communities have experienced all too often in the past few years; for example, many communities in my constituency recall last year’s winter storms. The point is that we never know what is round the corner. The measures are timely, proactive and will protect many of the most vulnerable.

Many people in isolated areas, where the weather can be harsh, use oil as their principal source for heating. It is extremely expensive. They can well do without the impact on their health and wellbeing of added stress from spiralling rents and potential eviction.

In my constituency, rent arrears are already spiking. Many people are living with horrendous anxiety over spiralling costs that go way beyond their means. Rural households on low incomes now spend about half their earnings on rent—almost 5 per cent more than low-income households in urban areas. Measures in the bill will help.

Rural households need more than £500 to take them out of fuel poverty, which is twice as much as in urban areas. Data shows that, because of rural households’ greater reliance on cars, they spend an average of about £114 per week on transport, compared with £80 for urban households. That eats into—it is a higher proportion—of their disposable income, if they even have any. The bill will help.

Once again, the Scottish Government has had to act with immediate effect because of the dithering of this UK Government. The months of inaction and chaos at Westminster and the lack of sufficient support in response to the cost crisis mean that it is right that we act within our devolved powers to support the people in Scotland immediately. The UK Government took five weeks to choose a new leader, while the rest of our urgent political debate was placed in a vacuum. Yet here, in our Scottish Parliament, we are making positive, real change within days and with the right outcome.

There have been complaints from some parties about the speed at which we are addressing this challenge, and I accept that using emergency legislation is not ideal. However, as many charities have pointed out, we are in a humanitarian crisis in which dither and delay cost lives. Folk, who are still reeling from the pandemic, are lurching from one crisis to another and seeing a dystopian political farce taking place at Westminster daily. Let us not heed any calls to slow our pace from associates of that.

We wish that we were not in the position of having to introduce emergency legislation to protect people from the impact of rent increases. I note the concerns and arguments from groups that say that more long-term solutions are needed. My view is that long-term solutions and short-term emergency ones are not mutually exclusive.

This bill is inevitable, it is proportionate and it is a humanitarian response to a humanitarian crisis.

I am especially pleased about the involvement of young voices. That will be important.

As the convener noted earlier, we are governed by two Governments and, as you said, we rely on the UK Government with regard to certain policies, support and its duties in that regard. Is there any alignment there? Are you able to voice exactly what our fishing industry in the north-east needs in a way that enables the UK Government to align with that, or is that difficult to do?

That is great. It is exciting, and I am looking forward to that.

Thank you.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I know that my colleagues have already discussed this, but what, given the current economic landscape, was the main reason for not going ahead with the islands bond policy?

That is good to know.

In the discussions that the committee had last week, there was a lot of focus on bringing in the voices of the people who live in those areas—that grass-roots, lived experience—and making them part of the conversation and the actions arising from that. Have you seen a shift or change in what people desire or want for island communities in light of the huge economic shift that is happening at the moment?