Seòmar agus comataidhean

I do not think that the circumstances that Colin Smyth describes would ever arise. I described circumstances that involved dogs being on a lead, dogs being elsewhere and dogs being held back, which could be used as part of the activity if they were swapped in at a later date. There is no way that that could be done to pursue the same quarry—the same animal. Therefore, flushing could not be prolonged in that way.

As we discussed in the context of rough shooting, a person must only ever control two dogs at one time. There could be two dogs in the back of a Land Rover that could be got for the second half of the day, but it would not be possible for them to be swapped in with such speed that the same quarry could continue to be chased.

For those reasons, I cannot support Colin Smyth’s amendments.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 244 seeks to add to the bill a definition of a pack, which it defines as

“a group of two or more dogs trained for hunting, excluding working gun dogs”.

As she said, in previous committee sessions I have sought to make it clear that, for the purposes of the bill, a pack is more than two dogs. That is already explicit in the bill, and I do not think that any further definition is required.

I do not agree that there is a contradiction. The term “pack” means more than two dogs and can apply to any dogs. The issue of consistency of approach throughout the bill is one that we discussed in a lot of detail at the committee’s previous meeting. Therefore, I do not support any attempts to create different rules for different types of dogs. The bill is about regulating the use of all hunting dogs, regardless of the type of hunting that takes place. I have seen no evidence to justify an exception for gun dogs.

I have concerns not only about the substance of amendment 244 but about the way in which it is drafted. I think that Rachael Hamilton probably intended to refer to “more than two dogs” as constituting a pack, but the amendment says “two or more dogs”. In my view, two dogs do not constitute a pack; a pack consists of more than two dogs.

On the exclusion of gun dogs from the definition, it would be very difficult to establish whether a dog was a “working gun dog”. That phrase might be used in ordinary language, but it is not sufficiently clear in legislative terms. The definition risks creating a loophole that would allow people to circumvent the two-dog limit, which is a cornerstone of the bill. For those reasons, I cannot support amendment 244.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 242 seeks to amend the definition of “under control” by reinstating wording from the 2002 act, whereby a dog is under control if it

“is carrying out an activity for which it has been trained”.

I think that Rachael Hamilton’s intention is that that would apply to all circumstances in the bill.

One of the key principles in the bill is that, when dogs are used to search for, flush or stalk wild mammals, they must be under control. That is a cornerstone of the bill. The bill sets out that

“a person who is responsible for the dog is able to direct the dog’s activity by physical contact or verbal or audible command”.

At the end of the day, dogs are animals, and even the best-trained dogs will sometimes react in an unexpected way. I do not accept that it is enough to simply rely on a dog to carry out an activity for which it has been trained. That would be the effect of the amendment if it were agreed to. We can imagine that, in extreme circumstances, a dog could be trained for purposes that we would not wish it to carry out. I fear that the amendment would significantly widen the definition of control, which is a key provision of the bill.

I am not sure that “bureaucratic diktat from pen pushers” is a reasonable way to describe the work of NatureScot and others, but I will leave that up to the member. Rachael Hamilton will probably not be surprised by my view on this, given that we debated the amendment that I lodged in the previous session. I said then that I had listened very carefully to the discussions on the licensing period during the committee’s scrutiny.

When I spoke to amendment 158 last week, I said that I had come to the conclusion that allowing some flexibility around the period of time in which the licence’s 14 days may be used was justified. That is why I lodged amendment 158—which, to remind the committee, would see the period of time for which a licence can be granted under section 4 be the original maximum 14 days, but within a period of six consecutive months.

Of course, I have considered Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 243, which would allow the licence to be granted for up to 28 days over six months, but I remain very much of the view that 14 days is the right number for the licence to cover. It allows sufficient flexibility to deal with changes to plans due to bad weather or other unforeseen events while not facilitating any more days of hunting over the period. Having spoken widely with stakeholders, I believe that 14 days is sufficient for the licensed predator control needs of most farms and that 28 days allows too many days of activity under a particular licence, given the very real need to maintain a tight control.

I will just finish my point. The term “sport” distinguishes between the recreational nature of these pursuits and wildlife management for economic or environmental reasons.

I was just concluding, but I am happy to take any comments from Edward Mountain.

That will be in the eye of the beholder.

Amendments 156 and 159 from my colleague Christine Grahame seek to remove the ability of NatureScot to license “a category of persons”. I very much understand the intention to tighten up how licences can be granted. However—we have discussed this a lot this morning—I do not want to create inconsistencies with the wording of the bill, which the two amendments could do, as the approach that we have set out is as set out in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

I will try to cover each of the points that have been made in turn. On the point about “person” and what that can be taken to mean, the law already states that the word “person” would include bodies such as a company or club, so those types of bodies could be granted a licence even if the bill were amended to only include “person”.

Yes. I was just going to come on to the point about categories. The other reason why that is important is that excluding a category would prevent a situation in which a set of neighbouring farmers, perhaps with hill ground stretching between them—exactly the terrain where Lord Bonomy said the provisions would be required—would be able to do what we have discussed with them: apply for a licence that runs with the terrain, not the individual, over that area of land.

It would run with the land, not with the individuals. NatureScot would receive an application for an area of land, it would consider the terrain—that being one of the main considerations—and it would determine whether it was suitable to grant a licence over that land.

The point about who would be liable in the case of a breach of conditions is important. That will always be the person or people who are undertaking the activity. Under section 1(4), those undertaking the activity will be everyone involved, not just those who are controlling the dog. As concerns applications for categories of persons, those liable would still be the people undertaking the activity. Likewise, if a farmer had applied for an agency to undertake the work, it would be in the first instance the agency—the folks on the ground who were undertaking the activity—who would be liable for any breach of licence conditions.

I would add that there are ancillary provisions in the bill that might catch the farmer in those circumstances if they had knowingly permitted illegal activity to take place on their land.

I would be happy to meet you to explain it further.

That might be the case in certain circumstances, but it would be for—

Yes. [Interruption.]

I do not appreciate the whispering across the room.