Meeting of the Parliament 24 January 2023
I am confident. That is an important question about something that we must bear in mind as we give NatureScot new responsibilities as the licensing authority. My officials and I have worked very closely with NatureScot throughout the development of the bill. NatureScot is confident of being able to manage the additional workload and has a long history of responding to routine licensing requests and expediting any where there is a need for urgency. That will continue.
I cannot support Rachael Hamilton’s amendments 41 to 43 and 75 to 77, because they would change the test for obtaining a licence in a way that makes less clear what is required from both the applicant and the licensing authority. The amendments appear to introduce a separate, stand-alone test for the applicant to meet, without specifying what that might mean in practice. I cannot support anything that might bring vague provisions into the legislation.
Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 48 would increase the period of time during which a licence under section 4 can be used, changing that from 14 days within a six-month period to 14 days over 12 months. I said during our stage 2 discussions in December that I believe that 14 days over six months is an appropriate period of time, allowing flexibility without an increase in the number of hunting days. My opinion has not changed since stage 2, so I cannot support those amendments.
I will move on as swiftly as possible to amendments 87 and 88, which are also in the name of Rachael Hamilton. I have to admit that I have struggled somewhat to understand the logic behind those amendments. To me—this has not really changed due to anything that I have observed this afternoon—they appear to seek to write into the bill circumstances where a person would not be breaching licence conditions even though they had demonstrably breached those conditions.
17:00The amendments would undermine the provisions and the safeguards in the licensing scheme and create numerous loopholes. For example, amendment 87 would mean that a person could apply for a licence to use more than two dogs for the control of invasive non-native species. The bill already provides that NatureScot may include in the licence any condition that it considers appropriate and that that should be complied with.
Amendment 88 touches on article 1 of protocol 1 to the European convention on human rights. I do not want to go too greatly into the detail of that, but I note that, as a public body, NatureScot is already obliged to comply with the terms of the ECHR, including the qualified right of article 1 of protocol 1.
I cannot support Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 89, which proposes an additional licence in certain circumstances. It would create a new provision that would allow a person to apply for a licence to use more than two dogs in certain circumstances without any of the safeguards that we have very deliberately and carefully built into the bill. The provision also refers to “pest species”, which is not a term that I will use readily, if at all.
Similarly, Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 90 seeks to ensure that a person may apply for a licence under a new section to permit the use of more than two dogs to deal with “pest species”. Again, the Parliament will note that that is not a term that the Government will readily use or accept.
Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 91 would require NatureScot to grant or refuse a licence or respond to the applicant within 30 days. I had an exchange with Beatrice Wishart on that. A turnaround of 30 days is already standard practice for NatureScot, and in some cases it is already far quicker. Of course, the processing times for licences will vary depending on the type of licence, the quality of the application and the supporting documents that are submitted.
As I said to Beatrice Wishart, I have confidence that NatureScot can continue to turn licences round in that period and that it has sufficient provision to deal with the need to expedite cases where that may arise. That point addresses Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 92, which I also cannot support.
Rachael Hamilton’s final amendment in the group is amendment 94, which would require the Scottish Government to make regulations for the licensing of more than two dogs for all of the 10-plus circumstances that are set out in the amendment. I believe that that is entirely unnecessary. Most if not all of the circumstances that are listed in the amendment are already covered by other areas of the bill or do not necessitate the use of more than two dogs.
For example, in relation to licences for the use of more than two dogs in rough, hilly terrain, I have been clear all along that one of the main reasons for introducing the licence has been about responding to Lord Bonomy’s comments on terrain. We have discussed recovering a wild mammal that has been injured in a vehicle collision and ensuring that foxes are humanely dispatched. I believe that the licensing scheme strikes a balance, but it is an exception to an exception and it must be construed narrowly.
Colin Smyth’s amendments 46, 49, 80 and 82 propose that applications for a licence to use more than two dogs be subject to adherence to a set of standards based on ethical principles for humane wildlife management. As I stated in response to Ariane Burgess in relation to her amendment on a wildlife management plan, I am sympathetic to the intention here, but I cannot support the amendments.
As we discussed at stage 2, NatureScot has developed that shared approach to wildlife management, which is a valuable framework and one that has been developed in conjunction with a wide variety of stakeholders from conservation, animal welfare and land management. That includes groups such as the RSPB, Scottish Land & Estates, the National Farmers Union and the Cairngorms and Loch Lomond national parks.
The consensus that has been demonstrated by the shared approach is not to be disregarded lightly and it is right that we give it a chance to operate before considering alternative frameworks. For that reason, I cannot support Colin Smyth’s amendments in the group.