Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes, I do. First, it is important to have consistency across the bill and the various types of hunting. Secondly, the changes that might require to be made to some activities that are regarded as rough shooting are minimal and proportionate. Many people already comply with those things that we will be asking them to comply with. The changes are minimal and proportionate and everything that I have heard gives me confidence that it will not be difficult to ensure that those well-trained dogs do what will be required under the new regulations.

Rough shooting and falconry are legal activities in Scotland, and—in the course of pursuing the Government’s aim with the bill—I am not in the business of going in by the back door to try to close down activities that are otherwise legal. That is not the purpose of the bill and it would be an arbitrary stretch of the bill if we were to do that, so I need to make sure that we avoid it.

Hugh Dignon might also want to come back in on that, but I believe that the bill seeks to regulate across the piece the way in which dogs are used in the course of hunting in the countryside, and consistency on that is important.

That question contains a number of aspects, so you will have to forgive me, because I will have to unpack them in turn. I will try to be as quick as possible.

You mentioned evidence for the inclusion of the welfare of rabbits. Since the introduction of the bill, I have been clear that the purpose of including rabbits is twofold. One reason is about the welfare of rabbits, and the other is about avoiding the taking of rabbits being used as a cover for hare coursing.

On the evidence on welfare, Mike Flynn said:

“A lot of people think that, in all these sorts of activities, the dog kills the animal instantly. You might get away with that with mice or rats, but it is definitely not the case with foxes or even rabbits. Not all of them are instantly killed and, in any case, they also experience the fear of being chased.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, 15 June 2022; c 15.]

That goes to the heart of the bill. A rabbit is a sentient being and, if we protect hares, we ought to treat rabbits similarly. Kirsty Jenkins of OneKind made that point at the round table last week.

The second reason why we included rabbits is to make sure that they can no longer be used as a cover for hare coursing. At the round table, when Rachael Hamilton asked DS Telford about that, he said:

“In relation to the enforcement of hare coursing offences, the addition of rabbits would aid police investigations.”

Rachael Hamilton then asked:

“Is that based on evidence?”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, 23 November 2022; c 35.]

DS Telford’s response was to say yes.

That is my position. Equally, I would say that removing rabbits from the scope of the bill would not take rough shooting outwith the bill’s remit, because animals such as foxes and hares would still be shot in that way, and they would still be protected under the bill.

The second part of your question was about the suggestion of including a recklessness element and landowner’s permission. The Scottish Countryside Alliance talked about that, and it is something that I have considered and, as I said, I keep considering it. I am not going to stand in the way of making the bill better; I want it to succeed.

However, I have to make two points on that. First, the words “recklessness” and “deliberately” were the exact terms that Lord Bonomy advised us should not be contained in the new act if we are to avoid subjectivity that is not helpful. The other point that I would make is that landowner permission will be required under the bill, and it does not address the welfare element.

I will consider all amendments ahead of stage 2.

I observed that part of the discussion and I thought that it was an interesting one. Mercedes Villalba also raised that point.

That might be an option for getting around the risk of vexatious complaints, if the shooting industry felt that it was really problematic. However, I bear in mind what the Scottish Countryside Alliance said about how that could be bureaucratic, and I genuinely want to see the bill take a proportionate approach.

I do not believe that the bill creates or exacerbates the risk of vexatious complaints. For example, these provisions are already in place in England and Wales, and I am not aware of any rise in the number of vexatious complaints there. Of course, if that was a risk and something that the shooting industry was particularly concerned about, I would be pleased to work with it to discuss how we might avoid that.

I can come back to you on that. Again, I point to what DS Telford said to you during your exchange with him. You asked him if the provision was based on evidence and he said yes. I am also pointing to comments including those from Mike Flynn and from Kirsty Jenkins of OneKind, who said that rabbits are sentient beings who are capable of suffering the same panic when they are chased and the same pain when they are killed as any other animal. I believe that we should treat rabbits on similar terms to those we apply to hares. I can come back to Rachael Hamilton with a written response on that if she wishes.

Yes, I am. It is balanced. I have always had confidence that the two-dog limit was a reasonable way of ensuring that element of control, which then ensures that the risk of animals being chased and killed in the countryside is reduced. That is the core purpose of the two-dog limit.

The challenge then is not about the concept of the two-dog limit but about folks understanding exactly how it applies in each situation. That is what we and the committee have worked hard to make clear throughout all your evidence sessions.

I know that my colleagues have spoken with the committee and set out how the two-dog limit applies under the bill. I tend to try to put it into my own non-official layperson’s language to make sure that it is absolutely clear. You can go out on a rough shoot, and the activity that you are undertaking is the flushing, searching for and stalking. The two-dog limit applies to that activity. Say, for example, that the bill team went on a rough shoot. Leia Fitzgerald and I could go out and, if I had two dogs, she could come with me and shoot the quarry that I flushed, as long as she did not have her own dogs. If three of us went out, providing that there were only two dogs between the three of us, the ones who did not have dogs could shoot the quarry that was flushed. There are different permutations, but I think that we are getting to the point at which it is clearer.

In those circumstances, that would be part of the minimal adaptation that would be required.

Absolutely, and I come back to the point that was made by Lord Bonomy, who is an expert in the problems of the former bill. His view was that this bill was “well-crafted” and made things “simpler” and “clearer”.