Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will, once I have finished the point. Those activities are already clearly prohibited by the bill.

I am sure that this is not intentional, but we need to be careful not to use the word “chasing”, as the bill makes it clear that it is unlawful for any dogs to chase or kill a wild mammal. The lawful activity is to flush, so we ought not to refer to chasing.

I do not mean to interrupt, but we need to be absolutely clear. My point in response to Colin Smyth’s amendment was that I agree with him that we cannot have perpetual flushing, but the bill’s provisions—not least the two-dog limit—already account for that. Equally, as one of my colleagues has just pointed out to me, the bill already provides that, once flushed, the wild mammal must be shot or killed as soon as reasonably practical. The circumstances that Colin Smyth is narrating would therefore be unlawful under the bill.

Everything that we have done has been about trying to make those instances clearer to law enforcement officers where they arise and avoiding the difficulties that we had under the 2002 act. A lot of what Colin Smyth is describing is unlawful under the bill. That is why his amendment is not necessary.

Amendment 181 is another technical amendment. Section 17 of the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020 places an obligation on Scottish ministers to publish and lay before the Scottish Parliament, within five years of its coming into force, a report setting out an assessment of the steps that have been taken to ensure information sharing in relation to certain persons, and the steps that ministers are taking to further progress such information sharing. The persons that are to be the subject of the report include those who have been convicted of an offence under the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002.

Amendment 181 removes section 23(4)(a) from the bill. That section removes the reference to the 2002 act in section 17 of the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020. However, despite the fact that the bill will repeal the 2002 act, I now consider that the reference to it should remain, simply in order to ensure that the reporting requirements under the 2020 act capture any persons with previous convictions under the 2002 act. We are trying to ensure continuity in that regard.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 57 inserts a duty on ministers to prepare a report to be published and laid before Parliament within one year of the commencement of section 1 of the bill and states that the report must set out the impact of the act on the cultural heritage associated with hunting with dogs and other points.

I do not support the amendment, as I do not believe that it is necessary or relevant for the Scottish Government to produce a report on the matters that are explicitly set out in the amendment. The Scottish Government, as a matter of course, will always seek to monitor and evaluate the impact of any new policies or legislation that is passed. However, the amendment would introduce a duty to report on things that are not within the remit of the bill.

As we have discussed at length, the bill was introduced to address widespread concerns that foxes and other wild mammals are being hunted and killed by dogs in contravention of the 2002 act. There is nothing in the bill about the cultural heritage associated with hunting with dogs; it is about preventing dogs from being used to kill and chase mammals, which has been illegal for 20 years.

Animal welfare legislation, such as the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, ensures the health and welfare of protected animals, including dogs. As part of the process of developing the bill, the Scottish Government undertook all of the statutory impact assessments, including an equality impact assessment and a business regulatory impact assessment, which I think should give Rachael Hamilton comfort on some of the issues that she raises. For those reasons, I will not support her amendment.

I move amendment 181.

The stop and search powers, which are reflected in the first of the amendments that I introduced, would be new. I am introducing them on the basis of stage 1 evidence from the police and to bring the legislation into line with the 2002 act.

The second suite of amendments that I am introducing, which include the element of changing “believing” to “suspecting”, concern powers that were already in the bill. The amendments involve ensuring that there is consistency of language with the new stop and search powers, which I propose the committee should vote on today.

I appreciate that, which is why I said that we would not confer stop and search powers lightly. However, I have a couple of points. The first is that this is consistent with other wildlife legislation. I am happy to provide examples afterwards, if that would be helpful by giving peace of mind.

I am looking through my notes to find the evidence that was given by Detective Telford, who said:

“we were just looking for a bit of clarity around that, as there is nothing in the bill. At present, the powers that are afforded by the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and other wildlife crime legislation, are really effective. That legislation affords us a power to search persons, which is key in gaining evidence of offences.

To go back to hare coursing, for example, that power allows us to take people’s phones in order to get potential evidence, such as footage, from them. We hope that the powers that we will be afforded in the bill will be similar to those in the current legislation.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, 22 June 2022; c 18.]

That is a reference to the stop and search powers.

I am happy to, convener.

I think that I should follow up with you about that. The reason why I think that the amendments are important and have asked the committee to support them today is that I am conscious that we are introducing a new stop and search power, and I want consistency of language between that new stop and search power—if it is agreed to—and the powers of seizure. That is why I am asking the committee to support that today, but I can certainly come back with anything that you would like to know about the difference between believing and suspecting.

The detective was representing Police Scotland when he gave that evidence to the committee. Moreover, I do not think that we would discount any other evidence that the committee has taken as only “opinion”; it has been given as and constitutes evidence to the committee.

I hope that members agree that my amendment 181 is necessary and that they will support it. I have listened carefully to what Rachael Hamilton has said today—I absolutely agree with monitoring and reporting, but not in relation to issues that are not connected with the purpose of the bill, which I cannot support.

Amendment 181 agreed to.

Section 23, as amended, agreed to.

Section 24 agreed to.

Section 25—Crown application: powers of entry