Seòmar agus comataidhean

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

I am saying that I cannot support the amendment as it stands and that, between now and stage 3, I would like to have the opportunity to consider the risk, the extent of any risk and any possible solutions that we can put in place if we establish that there is such a risk. However, I cannot commit to anything further today, because that work still needs to be done.

If Edward Mountain wishes to continue with his explanation of that activity, he should do that.

I will begin with Colin Smyth’s amendments 113 and 124, which were just being discussed. I understand why he has lodged those amendments. However, they are not necessary, and they could present practical problems.

The bill states that, unless a licence has been granted, only two dogs can be used to search for, stalk or flush a wild mammal. It is very clear about that. It also clearly sets out that, when a person uses two dogs for that activity, reasonable steps must be taken to shoot the wild mammal or have it killed by a bird of prey as soon as reasonably possible. That is a watertight set of circumstances.

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.