Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have listened carefully to what the minister said about plans to publish data on all NatureScot licences, and I know the GDPR issues. I will be pressing for progress and looking for a timeline, because it is in everyone’s interest, including that of landowners, for the public to be aware of the land to which a licence applies, the conditions, the effective period and so on. However, in the context of other proposed licence registers from NatureScot, I will not move my amendment.

Amendment 4 not moved.

In the interests of time, I intend to speak only to my amendments in the group. Amendments 2 and 3 seek to delete from sections 4(4)(a) and 4(5)(a) the phrase “category of persons”. The minister knows that I raised the issue at stage 2 through a probing amendment. My rationale for doing so was that I was unclear about the legal status of “category of persons”, especially in relation to enforcement or breach of a licence. For example, who would be charged if a licence holder breached the terms of the licence?

I note that section 4(1) states:

“A person may apply for a licence permitting the use of more than two dogs”.

It talks about a “person”. There is no addition of “category of persons”. There seems to be, at the very least, a technical inconsistency. Section 4(4)(a) refers to granting a licence to a “person” or “category of persons”. Similarly, section 4(5)(a) refers to a

“person or category of persons”.

As I said, that seems to be inconsistent with section 4(1). I look forward to the minister’s explanation if I have misunderstood the position.

Amendment 4 seeks to make the register of licences public. Again, I raised the issue at stage 2 through a probing amendment, and I will quote the minister’s response. She said:

“I am sympathetic to that; transparency in how licences operate is always desirable. NatureScot already successfully shares a lot of information on wildlife management licences, not least—as has been seen recently—in detailed reporting on the operation of the licences to manage beavers, so there is a precedent. There are also plans to publish data on all of NatureScot’s licences, but we need to work carefully through the general data protection regulation legislation in order to do that in a way that is legally watertight and does not undermine the GDPR.

That being the case, and having listened to the exchanges, I will continue to consider Christine Grahame’s points, and I assure her today that I will commit to going as far as possible within the remit of the GDPR to publish what it is that she is asking for.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, 7 December 2022; c 83-84.]

I have not seen any amendments from the Government, so I ask for an explanation from the minister. I know that, in exceptional circumstances, a licence that is granted can go to the land. However, if the register is not public, I am concerned about how an observer or someone who takes a particular interest in the matter will know whether the terms of that licence have been breached if they do not know what land it covers and who is responsible for the exercise of the licence.

I seek clarity on why the bill says that an application will be made by

“the person or category of persons”.

Let us say that three landowners, A, B and C, want a licence to cover their land—I know that a licence will apply to an area. A applies for the licence. Does A advise that they are doing so on behalf of themselves and B and C? I want to know how the approach will work; it does not seem to be consistent across the sections of the bill.

Okay. I will do whatever is necessary to move us along, so I am not pressing it and I am not winding up.

First, I will speak to amendment 13, which replicates an amendment that I lodged at stage 2 as a probing amendment.

The purpose of that amendment was to prevent possible circumvention of the legislation by, for example, the practice of what is known as “clean booting”. That involves having a human run some time ahead of a pack of dogs, with no animal or artificial animal scent with that person, the purpose of which might—and I simply say “might”—very well be to flush out and hunt foxes.

When I lodged that amendment at stage 2, the minister undertook to investigate the matter. I had not realised that that might happen, and I am pleased to see the minister’s amendment. I accept amendment 14 and, in the circumstances, I will not move my amendment 13.

I have to say—I am not sooking up—that the minister’s amendment is much better than mine. It includes the words “may by regulations”. That is important, because the committee did not have the opportunity at stage 1, and certainly not at stage 2, to take evidence on the matter. In my view, it is not a good idea to introduce something mandatory when no evidence has been taken. The minister’s amendment states that Scottish ministers

“may make regulations ... only if they consider that modifying the definition of trail hunting would contribute towards the protection of wild mammals from unlawful hunting using dogs.”

It also states,

“Before laying a draft of a Scottish statutory instrument containing regulations ... the Scottish Ministers must consult such persons as they consider appropriate.”

I think that that is absolutely correct. There is flexibility built in there, and it is open to evidence coming forward. Any change has to be made by affirmative procedure, which would allow committees, and indeed this Parliament, to check out the evidence before it is brought into the bill.

I am pleased, therefore, to recommend and support amendment 14 in the name of the minister and, given that it is so much better than mine, I am not moving amendment 13.

Amendment 13 moved—[Christine Grahame].

Will the minister accept an intervention?

I hope that the minister will give some indication, either now or during the debate, of when that review will take place and when we will have a report on that.

To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions it has had with NHS Borders and NHS Lothian. (S6O-01796)

With reference to the extreme winter pressures, I welcome the announcement of £8 million for interim social care beds to ease pressure on our hospitals. I note that it is to be shared between health and social care partnerships. When will we hear progress about the division of that money between the partnerships, particularly those serving my constituency of Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale, which includes both NHS Lothian and NHS Borders?

I will come on to resourcing.

During this thoughtful discussion, we should consider the following questions: what is the role of health boards? What should the relationship between GP practices and health board areas be? Should more GPs be directly employed by the NHS rather than in private practice? How much more can technology be used? What should the state provide in the care sector? What kind of workforce do we need and where do we get it when some options are closed because of Brexit? What will be required as our ageing population increases? How does our society afford expensive treatment and drugs? What price do we put on all that, and how do we fund it?

This is the only party-political thing that I will say: as a result of the disastrous and costly funding of public buildings, including in the NHS, using the private finance initiative under Labour, the cost each year to the Scottish Government in repayments to the private sector on NHS buildings alone runs at £250 million, which could have been better spent on services.

It is the job of the Opposition to hold the Government to account, but too often that is with press headlines in mind. Opposition members must offer solutions and, most importantly, credible funding sources from what is virtually a fixed budget, now reduced in value by £1.4 billion due to inflation.

I say to members in the chamber: less heat and more light, please. Turn down the volume on theatrical rhetoric; turn up thoughtful and responsible debate. That is what the Scottish public want.