 Mae'r cyfasyn oedd yn gallu gynnol i gael eu cwylwp'rŵan ateb ar y tuimies, ac mae'n gwych yn gwneud i由 i'r hyn o'r prysgol ym Mhwy Nid Ym Mhwy goggles ifrwyd yn eu gynhyrchu. The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the hunting with Dogs Scotland bill. In dealing with the amendments, member should have the bill as amended at stage 2. That is SP Bill 12A, the marshaled list and the groupings of amendments. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes for the first division of the stage three. The period of voting for the first division will be 45 seconds, thereafter I'll allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak buttons or enter RTS in the chat as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the marshaled list of amendments. We move to group 1, exception for use of dogs below ground. I call amendment 19 in the name of Ariane Burgess, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Ariane Burgess to move amendment 19 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and please accept my apologies for being late for the start of this debate. The Rural Affairs Committee expressed its concerns about the use of even one dog underground, stating that it is not clear that the use of dogs at all below ground is compatible with the bill's pursuit of the highest possible animal welfare standards. My amendment 59 removes section 5, the exception to use a dog to hunt foxes below ground. I thank Colin Smyth again for supporting this amendment and indeed all of my amendments. During the evidence process, the Rural Affairs Committee received evidence from the SSPCA on the consequences of sending dogs underground to flush foxes. Pictures showing dogs and foxes with horrific injuries and disfigured faces and written evidence about wild animals screaming in terror and pain as they were torn apart by dogs. How is this compatible with the bill's pursuit of the highest standard of animal welfare? Sanctioning the use of a terrier below ground is sanctioning a core part perhaps of the cruelest part of fox hunting. Terrier work also continues to occur as a cruel standalone pastime for certain people and gangs who enjoy using their terriers to attack foxes and badgers. Dog fighting is illegal in Scotland. It should also be illegal to pit a dog against a fox underground. Removing section 5 would also help to put a stop to illegal badger baiting by removing a common excuse from baiters that they were just trying to flush a fox. My amendments 19, 25, 28 and 31 are consequential from amendment 59. I support Colin Smyth's amendments 54, which stipulates that if a dog is used to flush a fox from below ground with the intention of killing it, then it must be killed by shooting it as soon as reasonably possible, not killed by a dog or another inhumane method. I do not support Rachael Hamilton's amendment 55, which adds to the list of purposes that would justify using dogs underground, or her amendment 58, as it would allow the use of nets that could prevent the fox from emerging from below ground, or even trap them to be used as bait for young terriers. I do support the minister's amendment 5 through 8, which adds conditions to the use of a dog below ground to reduce the impact on the welfare of both dogs and foxes. Of course, I would prefer that we do not allow hunting below ground at all. I move my amendment in this grouping. I support Colin Smyth's amendment 54 and other amendments in the group. Labour does not support the use of dogs below ground to control mammals in any circumstances. As has already been said, the stage 1 report from the rain committee stated clearly that it is not clear that the use of dogs at all below ground is compatible with the bill's pursuit of the highest possible animal welfare. That is because it is not. The proposal on the bill to limit the use of the number of dogs to 1 is an ineffective compromise. If it is cruel to use more than one dog below ground, it is cruel to use any. It is not credible to argue that you can properly control a dog once below ground. The Government will now admit this and have changed the explanatory note to the bill to say that a person who is responsible for the dog is defined in section 2.6 no longer continuously needs to direct the dog's activity by physical contact or verbal audio. Labour supports Arianna Burgess amendments 19, 25, 28, 31 and 59, which would remove the exception completely. The risk and harm caused by creating a counter between a dog and a wild mammal in an enclosed space makes it clear that the section should be removed on animal welfare grounds. The amendment in my name in this group only becomes relevant in the event that section 5 is not successfully removed. Amendment 55 seeks to specify that the intention should be to kill any emerging animal by shooting, ensuring that less humane methods are not used, that this scenario is not used as a cover story and that the intention is not to kill wild mammals with dogs. Although he specifies the method of killing should the wild mammal emerge, this amendment would more explicitly require that there is no intention for the dog to kill the wild mammal. The wording of my amendment has been altered from stage 2 to clarify that the wild mammal should be shot as soon as reasonably possible, which is similar to the rest of the bill. Amendment 56 from the minister to require a dog to use below ground to be fitted with a tracking device and amendment 7 to require reasonable steps to be taken to avoid dogs being trapped beneath ground and to rescue them if they do get trapped will get the support of Labour. As I've already stated, our position is that we oppose the use of dogs below ground altogether. However, those amendments would mitigate some of the risk to the welfare of the dogs and in those circumstances they get our support. Amendment 8 from the minister also to create a condition that a fox is not prevented from emerging below ground to mitigate one of the many risks posed to foxes by the activity permitted by section 5 should this section remain. However, amendment 58 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, which creates similar conditions to those in 5 to 8, would allow the use of nets to prevent the fox from emerging below ground and we don't support that due to the welfare concerns it raises. Therefore, I urge members to support the amendments in my name, those from Ariana Burgess and those from the minister in this group. Thank you, Rachel Hamilton, to speak to amendment 55 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Amendment 55 in my name seeks to extend the ability to use dogs to hunt. Sorry. Pardon? Sorry, I don't know if somebody wants to interfere. No, I could hear another sign too when Ms Hamilton continues. Amendment 55 in my name seeks to extend the ability to use dogs to hunt wild mammals below ground in order to preserve or protect species diversity of animal or plant life and eradicating invasive non-native species from certain areas. The purpose of being able to use a dog below ground is to enable fox control and effective wildlife management limiting the means to do so and protect livestock alone. Ignores the reality that using dogs below ground for these purposes is a vital tool for protecting other wildlife, such as vulnerable ground nesting birds. So far, we've heard no reasonable explanation as to why the Scottish Government believes the use of dogs to control predators below ground is acceptable for the protection of livestock, but not for the protection of dwindling populations of curlew or capecalee. The importance of using dogs in these circumstances below ground is clearly outlined by Lord Bonomy and Lord Burns in the Bonomy review. Bonomy said that the material presented to the review is persuasive of the need for the use of terriers to ensure the dispatch of fox gone to ground and there is no scientific evidence of the extent of the impact of the fox. Indeed, it was observed in the Burns report that the banning of hunting could have an adverse effect on the welfare of foxes in upland areas and less dogs could be used at least to flush foxes from cover. The 2002 act that this bill has been brought to Parliament to replace rightly allows for this form of predator control. I would ask the minister if she believes that it is appropriate at a time when ecologists are discussing the extinction of capecalee in Scotland to remove a vital means of protecting these birds from predators. If she believes that it is important to support my amendments. The omittance of this exception by way of a vote against amendment 55 could well be the nail in the coffin for the capecalee, but a vote for it would be a proactive step in ensuring we do not erode the toolkit of countryside custodians in effectively managing our wildlife. Amendment 58 aims to outline measures that should be taken for the welfare of dogs being used below ground. Whilst this bill seeks to address issues that the Scottish Government have identified in the 2002 act relating to welfare of animals being hunted, it also provides an opportunity to introduce measures to safeguard the welfare of dogs being deployed in these activities, particularly of the circumstances in using dogs below ground. By requiring the use of locating equipment and making it clear that, unless netting, nothing should be done to prevent the animal from leaving the place below ground, this amendment would protect dogs' welfare and ensure best practice. On the other amendments in this group, the Conservatives will not be supporting Arrian Burgess's amendments and Colin Smith's amendments, but are minded to support the amendments from the minister in this group. I would say from the outset that, in developing the bill, I have sought, and my officials and I have sought, to pursue on one hand the highest possible welfare provisions, but whilst balancing that against the need for farmers, for land managers, for environmental groups to carry out legitimate wildlife management in our rural nation. I know that the use of dogs below ground is a very polarising issue. I understand therefore why Arrian Burgess has brought those amendments, because I too have heard the evidence about the use of dogs below ground and how that can pose a risk to both the welfare of the dog and the wild mammal. I have sought to respond to that in many ways. It is why the bill purports to change the law so that no more than one dog can be used below ground, and that is in line with comments from Lord Bonomy. It is why we are placing strict limits on the purposes for which a dog can now be sent below ground. It is why, at stage 2, I supported amendments to remove mink, thereby again narrowing the situations in which dogs could be used below ground, and it is why I have lodged amendments 5, 6, 7 and 8 today, which had those further provisions on the face of the bill about ensuring best practice in welfare. I want provisions on that to be drawn as narrowly as possible. However, on the other hand, from the work that my officials and colleagues and I have undertaken in developing the bill, it has not been clear that there is a viable alternative when it comes purely to fox control. No more humane methods have been put to me that would fulfil the same function. In fact, something that has played on my mind significantly is that it has been put to me that some less humane methods may be used in absence of the opportunity to put a dog underground, which included blocking up a den resulting in starvation, which I think is something everybody would want to avoid. Therefore, after giving a great deal of thought to this matter, I am unable to support Ariane Burgess' amendments that would remove that provision. Moving to Colin Smyth's amendment 54, the amendment requires a person using section 5 to intend to kill the wild mammal by shooting as soon as reasonably possible. I appreciate that Colin Smyth has changed a similar stage 2 amendment to seek to remove the issue of inconsistent language. However, this amendment does still present a legislative anomaly. Firstly, because intention is very difficult to prove, it opens up by subjectivity, which was problematic in the former act in which we must try to avoid. Moreover, there is a practical problem because it is possible that a person searches for a wild mammal below ground, but that mammal does not emerge, so the person cannot shoot it. The person may have intended to do so, as per Colin Smyth's amendment, but that will not always materialise or happen in practice, so it would be wrong to have legislative provision that did not acknowledge that. In any case, section 5, 3D of the bill, as currently drafted, states that, if the fox is found or emerges from below ground, it must be shot dead or killed by a bird of prey as soon as reasonably practical. I think that that provides much of what I suspect Colin Smyth is seeking to do, but it does it in a realistic way that takes account of changing circumstances. For those reasons, I cannot support Colin Smyth's amendment. Moving to Rachael Hamilton's amendment 55, expanding the number of purposes for which a dog can be used below ground to include provisions for environmental benefit. As I said in the context of Arianne Burgess's amendment, I have considered this issue very carefully, sought to strike a careful balance. Just as I could not support Arianne Burgess's amendment to remove section 5 completely, nor can I support Rachael Hamilton's amendment to extend the purposes for which dogs can be used underground. I have not heard any evidence on allowing the use of dogs below ground for the purposes listed in the environmental benefit section, and I listened to what Rachael Hamilton said. I do not think that the section that she quoted from Lord Bonamy's report was necessarily evidence of this. Moreover, at the 2002 act, which we are seeking to update and improve, it does not allow the use of dogs below ground for the purposes that Rachael Hamilton would suggest. If I were to accept that, I would be going even further than the 2002 act provided, which I do not wish to do, so I cannot support those amendments. Coming to mine, section 5, 6, 7 and 8, I referred to them earlier. They seek to bolster and to make very clear on the face of the bill the welfare provisions that must apply to the use of any dog underground. They provide that anyone using a dog to search or flush a fox from below ground must, as well as complying with all other conditions, take reasonable steps to prevent the dog from becoming trapped, fit the dog with a suitable tracking device and not take any steps to prevent the dog from being flushed or emerging from below ground. Again, this is about the recognition and my desire to draw these as narrowly as possible and to ensure the welfare of the animals in so far as possible. Finally, Rachael Hamilton's amendment 58 seeks to address many of the same issues as my amendments 5, 6, 7 and 8. Those are similar precisely because I agreed with Rachael Hamilton's stage 2 amendment and confirmed that I would bring something back at stage 3, which addressed it. They are similar, but I would ask Parliament to support the wording of mine, which is more precise and consistent with the rest of the bill. For example, my amendment refers to, quote, a device to allow tracking of the position of the dog below ground rather than in Rachael Hamilton's, which refers to suitable electronic locating equipment, which is clearly subjective. They are very similar, and mine is more precise, and I should be grateful if Parliament would support that. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Before I start talking about any amendments, I would like to remind the Parliament that I have an interest in that I own and manage land and have been involved in wildlife management for over 40 years. First of all, I would like to thank the Minister for listening to some of the debates. I know that she has struggled in some of these to find a solution to some of the problems she feels as a matter of conscience. However, I find her amendments refreshing because they take into account what is, after all, good practice and practice on the land by most people that are using dogs underground. I am disappointed with Ariane Burgess' amendment, because she seems to seek to defend it by suggesting that it will stop dogfighting and badgerbaiting. There is never ever an excuse for dogfighting, and there is never ever an excuse for badgerbaiting. Badgers are one of the most protected animals in the United Kingdom. The offences for interfering or causing injury to badgers are probably some of the most stringent offences that you can be charged with. Therefore, I do not find those arguments compelling and for any reason to stop the use of dogs underground. Those people that work in the countryside know that when a fox gets a taste for lambs, it becomes a very difficult animal to control. Often, as we heard during the committee debate from Mr Fairlie, it was older foxes with less teeth who became more susceptible to predating on lambs. When you have seen a few lambs with their back passages eaten out, tongues chewed out or the soft underbelly ripped to power when they are still alive, you will know why foxes need to be controlled. Therefore, controlling them underground by using dogs to flush them from underground to be shot is entirely appropriate and unnecessary across the farming community. Conrad Smith's amendment, I do not believe, is one that needs supporting, because I think that, as the minister has made the point, is what people are attempting to do when they flush a fox from underground. They are there to try and shoot and kill it. I would support both Rachael Hamilton's amendments because I see them as good practice. I am concerned that, if members decide to support Ariane Burgess' section 5 amendment, we are making a problem for ourselves, which will prevent us not only looking after domestic livestock but looking after the flora and fauna of Scotland. I rise in support of the amendments that Rachael Hamilton has brought forward. I appreciate that the minister acknowledges the need for using dogs underground, and her amendment on that matter would improve the bill slightly on that front. However, Rachael Hamilton's amendments are based fundamentally on stakeholder engagement with the SCA, BASC and the Kennel Club, whereas the minister seems to be based on what our Government thinks is best. Can I ask the minister to reflect on who is better to decide on those improvements, rather than on welfare concerns for dogs? I call Ariane Burgess to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 19. I fully understand and sympathise with farmers' need to protect their livestock and crops. Removing section 5 will not prevent farmers from doing this. It just means that they have to use another method, which is less likely to result in agony and injuries for the dog and any wild animals involved. The Rural Affairs Committee has expressed its concern about using even one dog underground in its report, as have several other animal welfare organisations and the Government's own Scottish Animal Welfare Commission. It is clear that this exception should be removed from the bill. The minister has stated her concerns that removing this exception for foxes could lead to an increase in other cruel practices. However, we should not shy away from outlawing cruel practices for fear of other cruel practices being adopted. The mentality should not be what is the least worst. We should turn that on its head and actively seek better. I come to Rachael Hamilton's point on the need to protect Caper Caley. The Rain Committee heard from RSPB, the Scottish Society for Protection of Birds, that we have limited evidence that fox and crow control benefits Caper Caley. RSPB explore all non-lethal options before moving to lethal control and always bring in trained marksmen to conduct fox control on their land. They do not use dogs to control foxes. In response to Edward Mountain, if badgers are so well protected then why does the Scottish Badgers advocate removing exceptions to the use of dogs below ground? I press amendment. The question is that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and as this is the first division of the stage, I will suspend for around five minutes to allow members to access the digital voting system.