Government must address 'unintended consequences' in Hunting with Dogs Bill
Legislators ensuring their legislation is fit for purpose, and clearly understood by all parties, should be one of the primary concerns in any law-making process.
Yet, all too often, shades of grey in legislation can leave it difficult for the public, police and the justice system to understand how to interpret a law – and create a litany of unintended consequences in the process.
The Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill is currently at Stage 2 in the Scottish Parliament and on Wednesday (November 30), Màiri McAllan, Minister for Environment and Land Reform, Scottish Government, will give evidence to a committee examining the proposals contained within the draft legislation. (SLE's evidence session to the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee on 23 November 2022 is available at the end of this blog.)
SLE – alongside other rural organisations – is urging government to ensure it does not leave a shade of grey that could lead to the end of rough shooting, field trials or legitimate pest control in Scotland.
The key contention is that the Bill’s headline provision - which prohibits the use of more than two dogs to flush wild mammals (including rabbits) from cover - extends far beyond the stated policy aim.
The two-dog limit is principally designed to close the loopholes around illegal fox hunting, but it illegitimately and disproportionately infringes on activities that were never meant to fall within the scope of the Bill.
These activities include rough shooting and gundog field trials – two countryside pursuits that are an important component of the cultural fabric of rural Scotland, and enjoyed by people from all walks of life.
Even more worryingly, the Bill (as currently cast) is set to impact the toolkit for effective predator control, where footpacks, for example, play an important role. This will hamper a land manager’s ability to protect biodiversity and livestock.
We understand what government is trying to achieve but if this clause is moved forward, there will be an area of law that will be difficult for law-abiding land managers and shooters, police and the courts to interpret. It will leave a grey area open to legal challenge, a Bill that does not fulfil its intended purpose - and it will be rural Scotland that will lose out. The Scottish Government has an obligation to ensure it does not go further than is necessary to achieve the policy aim.
As this Bill moves forward, we are urging government to ensure this law is fit for purpose. Half-hearted assurances will do little to inspire confidence amongst those who will be affected by the new Act – instead, legislators must ensure that what they intend to happen is what is actually delivered on the statute books. Failure to do so would be inconsistent with the principles of better regulation.
Comments