 Mae gobon yn ei fungor ac mae ydych i effaith oen nhw cael brmanfaeth lleol pan sut bod cyn amdarl suc Mae y cwestiwn ystafell ar gyfer y ffordd yn ymgyrch o'r amylygu ar gyfer 30 minu oeddiad. Hyderwyddo? Hyderwyddo. Rwy'n credu ydym yn ymgyrch yn thef o'r Cllw yn Smyth, ond mae'r Amylygu ar gyfer 37. Rwy'n credu y bydd o'r Cllw yn Smyth oeddiad oeddiad oeddiad. Rwy'n credu ydym yn ymgyrch yn dechrau i'r amylygu ar gyfer 49. The Parliament is not agreed that members should cast their votes now. I call Cocab Stuart. Thank you Mr. I will ensure that is recorded. The vote is closed, I call Ivan McKee, for a point of order. Thank you. We'll ensure that is recorded. The result of the vote on amendment 49, in the name of Colin Smyth, is Yes 25, No 93. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 50, in the name of Ariane Burgess, already debated with amendment 37. Ariane Burgess, to move or not move. Sorry, Ms Burgess. Yes, it moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 50 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. I call co-cab Stewart. No. Thank you. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 50, in the name of Ariane Burgess, is yes, 26, no, 92, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 51, in the name of Ariane Burgess, already debated with amendment 37. Ariane Burgess, to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 51 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Are we all agreed? Members should cast their votes now. I call co-cab Stewart. No. Thank you. The vote is closed. Point of order, Rachael Hamilton. My app did not work. I would vote it now. Thank you. The result of the vote on amendment number 51, in the name of Ariane Burgess, is yes, 26, no, 93, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. The result of the vote on amendment 52, in the name of Ariane Burgess, already debated with amendment 37. Are we all agreed? unknown The question is that amendment 52 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Member should cast their votes now. I call co-cab Stewart. No. Arw. The result of the vote on amendment number 52, in the name of Ariane Burgess, is yes, 26, there were no abstentions, there were no abstentions, there were no abstentions. amendment number 52 in the name of Arrian Burgess is yes, 26, no 93. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 53 in the name of Arrian Burgess, already debated with amendment 37. Arrian Burgess to move or not move. The question is that the amendment 53 be agreed to, are we all agreed, the Parliament is not agreed, members should cast their votes Cymru? Ynw. Thank you. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 53 in the name of Ariane Burgess is yes, 26, no 93. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 54 in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 19. Colin Smyth, to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 54 be agreed to, are we all agreed? No. The result of the vote on amendment number 54 in the name of Colin Smyth is yes, 28, no, 90. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 55 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 19. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move? Not moved. I call amendment 55 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 19. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move? Not moved. I call amendment 55 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 19. Minister to move formally? Formally moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 55 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 66 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 19. Minister to move formally? Formally moved. The question is that amendment 66 be agreed to, are we all agreed? No. I call amendment 77 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 19. Minister to move formally? Move, Presiding Officer. The question is that amendment 77 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 88 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 19. Minister to move formally? Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you. The question is that amendment 88 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 56 in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 34. Colin Smyth, to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 56 be agreed to, are we all agreed? No. The Parliament is not agreed, members should cast their votes now. I call co-cab Stewart. No. Thank you. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 56 in the name of Colin Smyth is yes, 26, no, 94. There were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 9 in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 34. Colin Smyth, to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 9 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. The Parliament is not agreed, members should cast their votes now. I call co-cab Stewart. Yes. Thank you. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 9 in the name of Colin Smyth is yes, 91, no, 29. There were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment... I agree. My apologies. The amendment is indeed agreed. I call amendment 57 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 34. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move? Not moved. Thank you. I call amendment 58 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 19. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 58 be agreed to, are we all agreed? No. The Parliament is not agreed, members should cast their votes now. I call co-cab Stewart. No. Thank you. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 58 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is yes, 28, no, 92. There were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 59 in the name of Ariane Burgess, already debated with amendment 19. Ariane Burgess, to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 59 be agreed to, are we all agreed? No. The Parliament is not agreed, members should cast their votes now. I call co-cab Stewart. No. Thank you. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 59 in the name of Ariane Burgess is yes, 26, no, 95. There were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 60 in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 20. Colin Smyth, to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 60 be agreed to, are we all agreed? No. The Parliament is not agreed, members should cast their votes now. I call co-cab Stewart. No. Thank you. The vote is closed. I call Paul Sweeney for a point of order. Thank you, Presiding Officer, my act didn't connect. I would have voted yes. Thank you, Mr Sweeney. We'll ensure that it's recorded. The result of the vote on amendment number 60 in the name of Colin Smyth is yes, 25, no, 95. There were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 61 in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 34. Colin Smyth, to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 61 be agreed to, are we all agreed? No. The Parliament is not agreed, members should cast their votes now. I call co-cab Stewart. No. Thank you, Mr Stewart. I'll make sure that it's recorded and the vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 61 in the name of Colin Smyth is yes, 26. There were no 95, no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 10 in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 34. Colin Smyth, to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 10 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Are we all agreed? Yes. It would be helpful if you made that clear. Okay, we are not agreed. There will be a division Parliament and members should cast their votes now. I call co-cab Stewart. Yes. Thank you, Mr Stewart. I'll make sure that it's recorded and the vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 10 in the name of Colin Smyth is yes, 91, no 30. There were no abstentions, the amendment therefore is agreed. I call amendment 62 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 34. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move? Presiding Officer, if it helps, I won't be moving 62, 63, 65 and 66. Thank you, Ms Hamilton. I appreciate that that is helpful and we will try to expedite the process. 63 is not moved, is Parliament agreed? Excellent. I then call amendment 64 in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 50. I remind Parliament that the amendment 64 is agreed. I cannot call amendment 65, notwithstanding Rachel Hamilton's remarks. Colin Smyth, to move or not move? Moved. Moved. The question is that amendment 64 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. Cwcab Stewart? No. I will make sure that that is noted. The vote is now closed. Point of order, Kenneth Gibson. Sorry, a point of order. I would have voted no. I will make sure that that is recorded. The result of the vote on amendment 64 in the name of Colin Smyth is yes, 26, no, 95. There were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I would invite Rachel Hamilton to confirm that she is not moving amendment 65, Ms Hamilton. That's correct. Thank you. I would also invite Ms Hamilton to confirm that she's not moving amendment 66, Ms Hamilton. I'm not moving 66. Many thanks. I call amendment 11, therefore, in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 34. Colin Smyth, to move or not move? Moved. That is moved. The question is that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. The member should cast her votes now. Colcab Stewart. Yes. Thank you, Mr Stewart. I will make sure that that is recorded and the vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment 11 in the name of Colin Smyth is yes, 90, no, 30. There were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore agreed to. I call amendment 67 in the name of Rachel Hamilton. Already debated with amendment 28. Ms Hamilton, to move or not move? Moved. The question is that amendment 67 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. The member should cast her votes now. Colcab Stewart. No. Thank you, Mr Stewart. I will make sure that that is recorded and the vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment 67 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is yes, 29, no, 92. There were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 68 in the name of Rachel Hamilton. Already debated with amendment 20. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move? Moved. The question is that amendment 68 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. The member should cast her votes now. Colcab Stewart. No. Thank you, Mr Stewart. I will make sure that that is recorded. The vote is now closed. Point of order, Paul O'Kane. Thank you. My app would not connect. I would have voted no. Thank you, Mr O'Kane. I will make sure that that is recorded. The result of the vote on amendment 68 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is yes, 30, no, 90. There were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I move to group 6, environmental benefit exception. I call amendment 69 in the name of Rachel Hamilton in a group on its own. Rachel Hamilton, to move and speak to amendment 69. Thank you, Presiding Officer. At stage 2, the minister explained that a scheme could include a plan and use the example of a plan by a group of gamekeepers. This amendment seeks to specifically provide for this as a means of gaining an exception in the bill. While accepting that what amounts to a scheme will be clarified in the guidance that we are awaiting to see, it is important that the law recognises that land managers and keepers make a plan to control predators for important environmental reasons, both the welfare of the species, to be managed and species such as, as I've mentioned before, the Cappacalee or the Curlow, which are at risk of extinction unless predators are controlled. That these plans are as important as the schemes of organisations such as NatureScot, RSPB, as referred to in the bill's explanatory notes. There needs to be certainty that the work of gamekeepers, land managers and farmers for environmental benefits can continue where this needs the use of more than two dogs as part of that management. The vast majority of management in Scotland takes place on private land and without the work of land managers on the ground, the Government cannot hope to meet its targets and biodiversity goals and protect our most vulnerable species. Thank you. I move the amendment in my name. Thank you, Ms Hamilton, and I call the Minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In response to Rachel Hamilton's amendment 69 and our explanation that she's just given us, I would say that the explanatory notes which accompany the bill, they set out that the requirement for a scheme means that the activity has to be planned, and I stress the word planned and designed for one of the subsection 2 purposes. Now, this could be anything from large-scale projects such as the eradication of stoats on Orkney run by the Orkneyt native wildlife project to an individual gamekeeper planning deer cull. As I said at stage 2, it's my intention that further information about what may constitute a scheme for the purposes of applying for a licence under this exception will be set out in licensing guidance which will be produced should the bill be passed. The guidance will be developed following discussions with stakeholders who will have the opportunity to review and comment on it. Rachel Hamilton's amendment is in line with our, my understanding of what will constitute a scheme, namely that it could also be a plan or indeed a design or a programme of action, and I'm therefore happy to support the amendment. Thank you very much, Rachel Hamilton, to wind up the press withdrawal amendment 69. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm very encouraged and grateful to hear the minister put some faith in gamekeepers and land managers, and I would add that the faith has been difficult finding the majority of the content of this bill throughout its passage. However, support for this amendment is a vote of confidence in their ability to do their job, which I appreciate, and I move amendment 69 in my name, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Ms Hamilton. The question is that amendment 69 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division in Parliament, and members should cast their votes now. I call Cokab Stewart. Can I have Cokab Stewart's microphone? Yes. I'll make sure that that's recorded, and the vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment 69 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is yes, 92, no, 27. There were no abstentions. That amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 70 in the name of Colin Smyth. I've already debated with amendment 34. Colin Smyth to move or not move. The question is that amendment 70 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division, and members should cast their votes now. I call Cokab Stewart. No. I'll make sure that that's recorded, and the vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment 69 is yes, 95, no, 25. That amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 12 in the name of Colin Smyth. I've already debated with amendment 34. Colin Smyth to move or not move. The question is that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. There will be a division, and members should cast their votes now. I call Cokab Stewart. Yes. I call Cokab Stewart. No. I call Cokab Stewart. No. I call Cokab Stewart. I'm not agreed. There will be a division, and members should cast their votes now. I call Cokab Stewart. No. I call Cokab Stewart. No. I'll make sure that that's reported. The result of the vote on amendment 12 Fynd ei ddod am 19.1. Wrth ei ddadwch i'w amser i gael edrychiadau. Fynd ei ddod am Leey Ng, ond ei ddod am positives. Fynd ei ddod, ac yn y cyflym hefyd. Fynd ei ddod am Laeodraeth i'w amser i Gael Edrychiadau. Fynd ei ddod am Leey Ng, ond ei ddod am Llywodraeth. Cabinet Secretary? A fyddai'n gweld yn ymgymellio. Mae nifer Oedon. Felly, mae'n gweld yn 70. Mae'n gweld yn 70, calories, i ffrânbwyl. Felly, mae'n gweld yn 70. Felly, mae'n gweld yn 70. Maen nhw wedi adon nhw i ddefnydd. Felly, mae'n gweld yn 70. A oedd yn 70 a fyddai'n gweld yn siaradau am addysg? Ond mae'n gweld yn siaradau, mae'n gweld yn 75. Ond mae'n gweld yn 70, a fyddai'n gweld yn 70 a fan hyn. Ar gyfer o ddysgu ar gyfer o'r ddysgu ar Arre-am-Bergis a rydw i ddiweddio mewn argymwynt 37, yn ysgrifennu ysgrifennu a'r ddysgu ar gyfer o'r ddysgu? Ysgrifennu ysgrifennu yn 74, fe fyddwn yn gyfnwyr? Mae'n gyntafol. Mae'r ddysgu ar gyfer o'r ddysgu ar gyfer o'r ddysgu ar gyfer o'r ddysgu ar gyfer o'r ddysgu. Mae'n cael co-cub stewart. Mae. Mae. I make sure that is recorded and the vote is now closed. My vote is in error code so I voted no. Hyzer ddwyngon niwr. Mae gweithio ddwyngon eraill, ac rwyf amd-dwyngon niw. Rwyf amd-dwyon niw, Malfine Gwyrdor. Hyzer ddwyngon niw, Christine Grahame. Rwyf amd-dwyon niw, rwyf amd-dwyóon, amendment 74, ac rwyf amd-dwyon niw. Rwyf amd-dwyon niw, Malfine Gwyrdor. of Rachel Hamilton. I've already debated with the amendment 37. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. Question 11. Is that amendment 76 be agreed to? Are we all agreed? No. Not agreed? There'll be a division. And members who cast their votes now. I call Kocab Stewart. No. Thank you, Ms Stewart. I'll make sure that's recorded and the vote is now closed. Point of order, Emma Harper. Thank you. For some reason it froze, I would have voted no. Thank you, Ms Harper. I'll make sure that is recorded. The result of the vote on amendment number 76 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is yes, 29, no, 90. There were no abstentions, and the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 77 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, a ready debated with the amendment 37, Rachel Hamilton to move or not. Move. Question. Is that amendment 77 be agreed to? Are we all agreed? No. Apartment is not agreed. There will be a division then, membership, so cast the votes now. Call co cap steward? No. Thank you, Mr Stewart. I make sure that's recorded and the vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment 77 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is yes 29 no 91, there were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 78 in the name of Ariane Burgess, already debated with amendment 37. Ms Burgess to move or not move. Question is that amendment 78 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Parliament's not agreed, double division, and member shuckas a vote's now. I call kocab stewart. I will make sure that that is recorded and the vote is now closed. The point of order, Jenny Gilruth. I would have voted no. Thank you, Ms Gilruth. I will make sure that that is recorded. The result of the vote on amendment 78 in the name of Ariane Burgess is yes, 29, no, 91. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. Amendment 79 in the name of Ariane Burgess, already debated with amendment 37. Ms Burgess, to move or not move. Not moved. Thank you. I call amendment 80 in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 37. Mr Smyth, to move or not move. Question is that amendment 80 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Parliament's not agreed. The division member should cast their votes now. I call Cocab Stewart. No. Thank you, Ms Stewart. I'll make sure that that's recorded and the vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 80 in the name of Colin Smyth is yes, 25, no, 94. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 81 in the name of Ariane Burgess, already debated with amendment 37. Ms Burgess, to move or not move. Not moved. Question is that amendment 81 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Parliament's not agreed. The division member should cast their votes now. I call Cocab Stewart. No. Thank you, Ms Stewart. I'll make sure that's recorded and the vote is now closed. Point of order, Paul O'Kane. Thank you. My app wouldn't connect. I would have voted yes. Thank you, Mr O'Kane. I'll make sure that is recorded. The result of the vote on amendment number 81 in the name of Ariane Burgess is yes, 26, no, 93. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 82 in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 37. Mr Smyth, to move or not move. It moved. Question is that amendment 82 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Parliament's not agreed. There'll be a division and members should cast their votes now. I call Cocab Stewart. No. Thank you, Ms Stewart. I'll make sure that's recorded and the vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment 82 in the name of Colin Smyth is yes, 25, no, 95. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 83 in the name of Ariane Burgess, already debated with amendment 37. Is Burgess to move or not move? Move. Question is that amendment 83 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Parliament's not agreed. There'll be a division and members should cast their votes now. I call Cocab Stewart. No. Thank you, Ms Stewart. I'll make sure that's recorded and the vote is now closed. Point of order, Sharon Dowey. I would have voted no. Thank you, Ms Dowey. I'll make sure that's recorded. The result of the vote on amendment 83 in the name of Ariane Burgess is yes, 25, no, 94. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 84 in the name of Ariane Burgess, already debated with amendment 37. Ms Stewart. Is Burgess to move or not move? Move. Question is amendment 84 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Parliament's not agreed. There'll be a division and members should cast their votes now. I call Cocab Stewart. No. Thank you, Ms Stewart. I'll make sure that's recorded and the vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment 84 in the name of Ariane Burgess is yes, 25, no, 94. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 85 in the name of Ariane Burgess, already debated with amendment 87. Are we all agreed? No. Parliament's not agreed. There'll be a division and members should cast their votes now. I call Cocab Stewart. No. Thank you, Ms Stewart. I'll make sure that's recorded and the vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment 85 in the name of Ariane Burgess is yes, 25, no, 94. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 86 in the name of Ariane Burgess, already debated with amendment 87. Are we all agreed? No. Parliament's not agreed. There'll be a division and members should cast their votes now. I call Cocab Stewart. No. Thank you, Ms Stewart. I'll make sure that's recorded and the vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment 86 in the name of Ariane Burgess is yes, 25, no, 94. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 86 in the name of Ariane Burgess, already debated with amendment 37. Ms Hamilton, to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 87 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Parliament's not agreed. There'll be a division and members should cast their votes now. I call Cocab Stewart. No. Thank you, Ms Stewart. I'll make sure that's recorded and the vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment 87 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is yes, 29, no 89. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 88 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 87. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 88 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Parliament's not agreed. There'll be a division and members should cast their votes now. I call Cocab Stewart. No. Thank you, Ms Stewart. I'll make sure that's recorded and that's recorded and that's recorded. No. Thank you, Ms Stewart. I'll make sure that's recorded and the vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment 88 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is yes, 30, no 89. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 89 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 37. Ms Hamilton, to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 89 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Parliament's not agreed. There'll be a division and members should cast their votes now. I call Cocab Stewart. No. Thank you, Ms Stewart. I'll make sure that's recorded and the vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment 89 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is yes, 29, no 92. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 90 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 37. Ms Hamilton, to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 90 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Parliament's not agreed. There'll be a division and members should cast their votes now. I call Cocab Stewart. No. Thank you, Ms Stewart. I will make sure that's recorded and the vote is now closed. Point of order, Paul O'Kane. My app crashed. I would have voted no. Thank you, Mr O'Kane. I'll make sure that is recorded. The result of the vote on amendment 90 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is yes, 29, no 92. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 91 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 37. Ms Hamilton, to move or not move. Not moved. The question is that amendment 91 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Parliament's not agreed. There'll be a division and members should cast their votes now. I call Cocab Stewart. No. Thank you, Ms Stewart. I'll make sure that's recorded and the vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment 91 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is yes, 28, no 92. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 92 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 37. Ms Hamilton, to move or not move. Not moved. That is not moved. I call amendment 93 in the name of Ariane Burgess, already debated with amendment 37. Ms Burgess, to move or not move. Not moved. The question is that amendment 93 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Parliament's not agreed. There'll be a division and members should cast their votes now. I call Cocab Stewart. No. Thank you, Ms Stewart. I'll make sure that's recorded and the vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment 93 in the name of Ariane Burgess is yes, 25, no 96. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 94 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 37. Ms Hamilton, to move or not move. Not moved. The question is that amendment 94 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Parliament's not agreed. There'll be a division and members should cast their votes now. I call Cocab Stewart. No. Thank you, Ms Stewart. The vote is now closed. Point of order, Colin Smyth. I would have voted no. Thank you, Mr Smyth. That will be recorded. Thank you. The result of the vote on amendment 94 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is yes, 29, no, 91. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 95 in the name of Colin Smyth in group 7, to report group with amendments 96, 101, 103, 104, 102. I call Colin Smyth to move amendment 95 and to speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As I've made clear at each stage of the bill, I disagree with the licensing provisions contained within it. However, if the section is to remain, then we must ensure that the system works as is intended to with licences only granted as a last resort. Amendment 95 in my name, which I move, would create a duty for ministers to review the operation of the licensing scheme created by sections 4 and 8 every five years. Lay a report before Parliament after each review and specify the actions that will be taken as a result of the review or the reason no action will be taken. In evidence to the committee at stage 1, NatureScot indicated that there should be capacity for the licensing scheme to evolve based on experience and said that, and I quote, there needs to be some means by which we can monitor the licensing regime, receive feedback on it and continue to refine it to ensure that it delivers what it says on the tin. It's important that loopholes do not appear in this legislation further down the line as a result of the licensing scheme becoming outdated or unfit for purpose or simply having unintended consequences. The requirement in my amendment for ministers to review the operation of the licensing scheme and then take the appropriate action and response would ensure that the duty to report is as effective as it can be. The first review must be carried out before 31 December 2028 and reviews must then be carried out every five years. For each review, ministers must consult those who have an interest in the licensing provisions and the report of the review must be laid before Parliament. Scottish Government must settle in that report any action that is intended to take as a result of the review or give a reason if they decide no action is required. Requiring the report to be laid before Parliament will provide Parliament with the means to scrutinise the impact of the licensing scheme and be confident that it is working as intended and remains fit for purpose. It will also make sure that any issues or unintended consequences arising from the operation of the scheme are identified and recommendations put forward as to how those can be addressed in the future. I urge members to support this amendment to ensure that should, including the licensing scheme, be continued, no loopholes will be there in the future. The Northern Mountains amendment 96 creates a requirement to report on licensing, but it does not seek to have a review. Other amendments from 101 to 104 also create a requirement to report. I think that there is merit in specifying areas that should be reported. I think that some of the areas and the amendments go beyond the scope of the bill, however, and more importantly, are very selective to try to make an argument rather than provide a balanced report. They largely ignore animal welfare issues in relation to the world mammals ultimately being searched and flushed out. For example, in relation to the use of dogs below ground. I think that, if Rachel Hammond and the women engaged with others on the amendments, I suspect that there could well have been agreement on what could be reported on. I cannot agree to the list in her amendments, but it will be possible, I think, as a result of my amendment to allow such reviews and reporting to take place in the future. I would move amendment 95 in my name, Presiding Officer. I call Edward Mountain to speak to amendment 96 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I'll start by speaking to my amendment. I know that Governments don't necessarily like looking back at what's been achieved or not been achieved, but I think it's really important that we do that. My amendment brings forward the requirement on the Government after two years of the operation of any licensing to declare information about the applications granted and the applications refused. There are slightly different areas in each of those which can be seen in the amendment. I think that it also should declare how long it takes for an application to be processed and would be very happy for the Government to add any other information that they feel appropriate. I want to just say on this that the Cabinet Secretary said earlier that she was convinced that NatureScot had the facilities to do this. I, too, am convinced that NatureScot has the facilities to do it because I met with them and asked them whether they had the ability to carry out their requirements of this legislation and permutations of it, and they told me yes. As far as Colin Smyth's amendments concerned, I'm minded to hear what the Minister says. It doesn't necessarily chime with me that there should be a review every certain period this is legislation, and if it's not working then I would suggest that the whole legislation be considered not just the licensing, but I'd be grateful to hear what the Minister says. I think the points the amendments brought by my colleague Rachel Hamilton are really interesting because this actually drills down into the effects of this legislation and the effect it will have on the countryside and for those reasons I support it. I would ask members in this chamber to support my amendment on the basis that it will give the Parliament full information about what they are imposing and will also allow them to make decisions on the future whether licensing is appropriate and achieving what it aims to do. I talked about the opportunity within this bill that was amendment 24 to make further provisions to address the illegal act of hair coursing. Amendment 101 seeks to ensure ministers report on the impact of this bill on hair coursing using dogs and outlines a way of taking further steps to reduce occurrences in this activity. Amendment 103 adds further provisions on matters for ministers to report on the impact of the bill. I am particularly concerned at the lack of consideration this bill has given to the welfare of dogs involved in hunting. I am concerned that BASC the Scottish Gamekeepers Association and more than groups believe that as a direct result of this bill working dogs will face a cull. I believe that it is necessary for ministers to report on the impact the bill will have on the long term implications alongside the impacts on the rural economy and livelihoods that depend on it. There is also a cultural heritage aspect to this bill. Unfortunately my amendment fell on this particular point at stage 2. However, I have brought it back as I feel that it is yet to be debated and I believe that ensuring ministers report on the impact of this bill on these matters would be an important step to assessing the bill's influence on our countryside. Amendment 102 also seeks to assess the impact of this bill on other aspects of the rural economy likely to be impacted by the bill including the impact on, for example, veterinary services, barriers, apprenticeships, etc. We have heard from stakeholders particularly BASC, the Kennel Club and Scottish Moreland groups that one of the unintended consequences of the bill would be to erode the rural economy and a large part of our countryside culture through their film screamed in Parliament which many of us saw last September demonstrated exactly that. Amendment 102 also seeks to ensure this is reported on alongside any potential harm this bill may have on the increasing strain on rural workers' mental health including increasing loneliness and isolation due to the loss of social structure around hunting. It is evident and also raised by the NFUS and of course we can only look through the lens of the call for a gamekeeper's task force. Poor mental health in rural areas is costing lives in Scotland and I believe that it is right that we ensure our work here in Parliament does not exacerbate that. I am afraid as many rural stakeholders are that this bill has the potential to make things worse. I would therefore appreciate a commitment from the Government to support this amendment in particular to ensure we assess whether this bill does harm mental health amongst rural workers and that constructive work is undertaken to minimise the risks of this. Amendment 100 focuses on ensuring that additional costs and resources to public bodies involved in administering the provisions in the bill are reported on by the ministers on amendment 104. The Scottish Government has said from the outset of this process beginning with the Bonomy review that they wish to see the necessary level of protection for foxes and other wild mammals while allowing for the effective humane control of those animals where required. I quoted that. Lord Bonomy's report did not call for a two dog limit. The aim of this amendment is to ensure the Government monitors the impact of this legislation on the ability of land managers to control foxes, protect livestock and wildlife and the environmental and socio-economic consequences of this bill and ensure that it is working as it was intended to do. I just wanted to comment on Colin Smyth's amendment. I just think that it lacks focus and I think that Edward Mountain's reporting on licences is much more detailed and relevant to looking at the impact on the bill. Thank you. I have two members who are seeking to make contributions and I will take both and would hope for brief contributions firstly, Arian Burgess. I would like to speak in support of Colin Smyth's amendment 95 which creates the duty to review the operation of the licensing scheme every five years and take appropriate action. Our legislation needs to be watertight in order to put a stop to fox hunting and other cruel activities that involve hunting with dogs such as badger baiting. The licensing scheme unfortunately offers one of the biggest potential loop holes. It should definitely be a subject of periodic review. In particular, it will be important to determine whether the licence for using dogs for environmental benefit is used for legitimate purposes and whether it's necessary to retain it. In that light, I believe that Colin Smyth's amendment is the right amount of periodic review with a proportionate approach and not too prescriptive. Thank you. I rise to support the amendments in the name of Rachel Hamilton and Edward Mountain. I'm all for holding Government to account and transparency and accountability and I believe that that's what Colin Smyth's amendment is trying to achieve as it would oblige the Government to provide an explanation for choosing not to amend section 4 of the bill. However, it would not oblige Minister to provide an explanation for changing the law. I'm a query why he doesn't agree that a change in the law should be justified and maybe in some way he would explain why he admitted to provide for this within his amendment. Thank you Mr Carson. I'm now calling the Minister. Thank you. I should just say before addressing the amendments in turn, those amendments taken together would impose seven new reporting requirements at various timescales and covering a wide range of issues. Some are directly relevant to the provisions of the bill, some are not. If we were to undertake all of these they would take considerable and I will say disproportionate Scottish Government resources to fulfil and there would be duplication with many of those requirements already covered in other statutory duties or regular reports. That being said, Scottish Government is committed to an open and transparent approach to legislation and where additional reporting serves a useful purpose I'm happy to support it. Colin Smyth's amendment 95 is a good example of this. I understand the licensing provisions are a key element of this bill. I recognise there is on one hand legitimate concern about how they may be sought as a loophole whilst on the other there are fears that they will not be available where they would be the only effective solution for protecting livestock and ground nesting birds. By placing a duty on the ministers to review the operation of the licence provisions contained in sections 4 and 8 we'll be able to provide reassurance on how these licences are being used and where necessary take action to ensure that they operate the way they are intended. I hope that my final words there on taking action will bring some reassurance to Finlay Carson. I support Colin Smyth's amendments therefore, but I'm afraid I cannot support any of the other amendments in the group. Edward Mountain's amendment 96 would require Scottish ministers to, after only two years, lay before Parliament an annual report on licences and specifies in 19 lines of detail what that report should contain. I don't think that this is the right approach. First of all, the Scottish Government has made clear a commitment to review the operations of all wildlife management licensing carried out by NatureScot. I've referred to that piece of work a number of times this evening and the fact that this sector-wide approach is the most appropriate. Secondly, I've already said at stage 2 and again this afternoon that I will go as far as possible under GDPR legislation in providing detail about licences but I must be able to consider that work in the round and be especially cognisant of data protection. Similarly on Rachel Hamilton's amendment 101 hair coursing is undoubtedly a cruel practice that persists in Scotland and that's why it's so important that the bill will help tackle it. However, a specific report on the impacts of this bill on hair coursing is unnecessary and would be duplicating work already on-going. For example, under section 26B Fife and Countryside Act, Scottish ministers are already required to report every calendar year on offences that relate to wildlife including information on incidences, prosecutions on research and advice. Yes, I'm happy to. Rachel Hamilton. Minister, clearly the incidences of hair coursing and the prosecutions are not improving therefore will the minister reconsider her comments and she has seen a few more of the figures from the reporting mechanism that she has highlighted in the chamber today? Minister. I think the point that Rachel Hamilton makes is more about what can we do to improve the incidences of prosecution of hair coursing and is less about the mechanism by which we monitor the numbers of prosecution and the incidences so my views on that amendment they do stand. The point about penalties but I would in turn point out that the penalties for hair coursing were reviewed in the report by Professor Pustey and changes that he recommended were made very recently in this Parliament in the Animals and Wildlife Penalties Protection and Powers Scotland Act. Similarly, Rachel Hamilton's amendment 103 goes on to insert duty on ministers to report on the impact of the act on cultural heritage associated with hunting with dogs as well as various other matters. I can't support this amendment I don't believe that it's relevant or necessary. The Scottish Government as a matter of course will always seek to monitor and evaluate the impacts of any new policies or legislation that it passes however this amendment would flatly introduce a duty to report on things which are not within the remit of the bill. On the question of the welfare of dogs and Rachel Hamilton's suggestion of a cull I'm not aware of any evidence that there was widespread culling of hunting dogs when the two-dog limit was introduced in England and Wales. A comment that the Scottish Government supports the retention of working dogs or the rehoming of dogs that have come to the end of their working life and I would take the opportunity to point out that section 19 of the Animal Health and Welfare Scotland Act 2006 makes it an offence for a person responsible for a protected animal or a dog to cause that animal any unnecessary suffering by action or omission or to permit another person to do so. For all those reasons I don't support that amendment. Moving as quickly as possible to Rachel Hamilton's amendment 104 placing a duty on ministers to report on the level and health of the fox population on biodiversity in particular on ground nesting species and farmers income and other matters. I do agree with Rachel Hamilton that there are important issues on fox numbers. There is limited data in this area however research referenced by Lord Bonomy suggests a stable population of around 23,000 animals with some 41,000 being born and around 18,000 killed by various means of control. With regard to biodiversity and ground nesting birds the picture holds predator control is important but only a small part of that is part of control. As regards farmers income and their livestock many farmers already carry out control without the use of dogs and those who require dogs will be able to continue to use too. I repeat those are important issues in their own right but not appropriate for a reporting duty. Similarly the Government's position is similar as regards amendment 100 in Rachel Hamilton's name. This is about reporting the act's provisions on the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service with regard to any increase in court procedures Scottish Government departments responsible for implementing the provisions of the act as regards staffing time NatureScot with regards to increase in staffing time etc. I do not believe that this is necessary or desirable. Of course prior to the bill being introduced a full financial memorandum was undertaken and it has been published on the Scottish Parliament website. The memorandum set out the anticipated costs associated with the measures including the cost to NatureScot and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. Again this is demonstrating how much of this work is already on-going. Finally Rachel Hamilton's amendment 102 proposes another duty for Scottish ministers to report and after only two years on the impact of provisions on any loss of jobs in rural areas, any loss of social care and the mental health impact associated with that. I've already said how we undertook a full business regulatory impact assessment for this bill. It's assessed that the provisions will have minimum impact on business. Of course this bill is about ensuring the law is effective in preventing the chasing and killing of wild mammals by packs of dogs but there will continue to be need for legal predator control and for the lawful use of those dogs. The impact of this bill on a particular aspect of rural society and mental health is of course another important but I would say a very vague and difficult concept to report on and I don't think that it would be sensible to require it by law as Rachel Hamilton suggests. There's also some drafting issues for example it's not clear what or who would be covered by the term apprentices among others so for that reason I can't support any amendments in the group with the exception of Colin Smith. Thank you. I now call Colin Smith to wind up and to press with draw amendment number 95. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome the Government's support for my amendment 95 to create a duty for ministers to review the operation of the licence scheme. Edward Mountain asked why I had specified the licence scheme but I believe that this is the main area of the bill that we really do lack detailed information on and I think it does require to be properly reviewed. Finlay Carson asked the question Edward Mountain? I thank Colin Smith for giving way. I wonder if the member agrees with me that to be able to review the licensing you need to have full details of all the licensing that's being carried out so would my amendment therefore not support what he's trying to achieve? In order to review then information will be required I think that's part of that will be covered by part of my amendment specifically with Edward Mountain's amendment which only asks for information but not actually a review itself. Finlay Carson raised the point that why would the Government have to specify the reasons if they did not intend to take any action but they wouldn't have to specify the reasons if they did propose a change in the law. The reality is they would have to specify the reasons if they changed the law because the parliamentary process would require that to happen. You couldn't change the law unless you set out what the specific changes were and that would be scrutinised by Parliament so it does require the Government, you can't change the law without bringing that to Parliament and specifying the reasons for it. On the other amendments to create a requirement to report as I've said, report is one thing but I believe our review is stronger. There are some areas that do I think merit reporting on a regular basis however I don't happen to agree with the list that's specified in Rachel Hamilton's amendments. However, the review mechanism that I've set out in my amendment will at least provide an area in which the reporting could take place so I'm happy to press my amendment 95. Thank you Mr Smith. The question is that amendment 95 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their vote now. I call Cokab Stewart. Yes. Thank you Mr Stewart. The vote is now closed. Thank you. The result of the vote on amendment 95 in the name of Colin Smith is yes, 92, no 29. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 96 in the name of Edward Mountain. Already debated with amendment 95, Edward Mountain to move or not move? The question is that amendment 96 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. Members should cast their vote now. I call Cokab Stewart. No. Thank you Mr Stewart. The vote is now closed. Thank you. The result of the vote on amendment 96 in the name of Edward Mountain is yes, 33, no, 87. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I now move to group 8 laying ascent for training dogs and I call amendment 13 in the name of Christine Grahame, grouped with amendment 14. I call Christine Grahame to move amendment 13 and to speak to both amendments in the group. Miss Grahame. I will speak to both amendments. I will speak first 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, say the practice what is known as in inverted commas, clean booting close commas. That is having a human run sometime ahead of a pack of dogs with no animal or artificial animal scent with that person. The purpose of which might, and I just say might, be very well to flush out and hunt foxes. When I lodged the amendment, the minister undertook to investigate, I hadn't really realised this might happen and I'm pleased to see and can I say, I now accept amendment 14 and in these circumstances I'm not going to move my own amendment. There's much in the amendment, I have to say this, I'm not suking up the amendment, the minister's much better than mine. There's a may by regulation, so this is important because at stage 1 the committee did not have the opportunity to take evidence on this and they certainly didn't have the opportunity at stage 2 and I think to induce something mandatory when no evidence has been taken is not a good idea. The minister has done, as he said, 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 and also states before laying a draft of the SSI containing regulations the Scottish ministers must consult such persons as they consider appropriate and I think that's absolutely correct. So there's a flexibility built in there it's open to evidence coming, it is to be done by affirmative procedure which allows committees and indeed this Parliament to check out the evidence before that's brought into the bill. So I'm very pleased to recommend and support amendment 14 and the minister and given that it's so much better than mine I'm not moving amendment 13. I call the minister to speak to amendment 14 and the other amendment in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As Christine Graham said she brought these matters forward at stage 2. Her amendment resubmitted at stage 3 gave me much cause for consideration and I want to thank her for that. There are a number of reasons why I can't support amendment 13 as it stands and for completeness I'll set out some of the detail of that however I will principally go on to explain my amendment 14 which in many ways seeks to rise to the issues Christine Graham has rightly highlighted. Firstly because of the way we've drafted the principle offence in the bill that is hunting a wild mammal using a dog the amendment's reference to allowing a dog to hunt or being reckless as to whether it does isn't required as Lord Bonomy highlighted in his review hunting in this context is always an intentional activity and there's some other inconsistencies with the language that I won't go into on the basis of Christine Graham's explanation of our intentions this afternoon however as regards following an artificial or human scent I do support the principle behind amendment 13 I understand why Christine Graham's brought it forward and her desire to be vigilant in avoiding a loophole whereby those who wish to continue illegal hunting could use drag hunting as a cover regulating the use of dogs to find and follow non-animal based scents including human scents it wasn't included in the bill as it doesn't directly or indirectly involve the use of dogs to hunt wild mammals and unlike with trail hunting we do not currently have evidence to suggest that drag hunting is being used as a cover for illegal activity neither do we currently have evidence that wild mammals are being accidentally chased or killed in the course of drag hunting now as the bill is drafted if a person undertaking drag or clean boot hunting and they allow their dog to chase or kill a wild mammal without taking reasonable steps to prevent it then they may have committed an offence under section 1 but I recognise the concerns that have been raised by Christine Graham and by the League Against Cruel Sports that people seeking to continue illegal hunting may, following passage of the bill, try to use these seemingly innocuous activities as a cover for something more difficult therefore my amendment amendment 14 if passed will add a regulation making power into the bill which will allow Scottish ministers to extend the definition of trail hunting to include both animal and non-animal based scents this will allow Scottish ministers to bring forward regulations to add other scents for example and a seed to the definition of hunting if evidence should come to light that trail hunting is continuing in a new form and that it poses a risk to wild mammals now the power can only be exercised where Scottish ministers consider identifying the definition would contribute towards the protection of wild mammals from unlawful hunting using dogs the power also allows for new exceptions to be created so that legitimate activity within the definition can continue now regulations would require consultation and would be subject to affirmative procedure giving Parliament its place with scrutiny I hope that we will not have to use this power but given what has happened in England with trail hunting where we know there are serious concerns that it is being used as a cover for illegal activity I think it's important that we build safeguards into the bill to allow us to take action in future should that prove necessary so I'd like to thank Christine Graham for bringing these matters to me to chamber I'd ask her not to press her amendment 13 and just concluding as she said she will not and instead to support amendment 14 thank you I press the button to speak and therefore I call Ariane Burgess for a brief contribution for some context trail hunting directing dogs to chase after an animal based scent was invented in England after the hunting act came in in 2004 we have to remember that mounted hunts never went trail hunting until that was the only way that they could get around the law so the Scottish government is right to preemptively ban it by making trail hunting an offence in Scotland the minister's amendment 14 is very welcome as it gives Scottish ministers the power to change the definition of trail hunting if related forms of this activity begin to be used as a loophole for fox hunting but why not prevent this from the start why wait until after the fact and have to change the legislation later widening the definition of trail hunting now won't negatively impact on anyone except those determined to continue hunting with packs of dogs can I say to the member obviously I share concerns but I think the member must consider it must be evidence based by this Parliament and tested by this Parliament very much so I don't want any of this to happen I very much agree with the minister that we require for the sake of all parties to this to have evidence based and when that's evidence here the flexibility is built into the primary legislation that doesn't need to be amended Arianne Burgess I thank the member for that comment and I agree with you I just want to really get the point across that mountain hunts were never went trail hunting until that was the only way to get around the law and I just think that's really important for us to understand I think that's been one of the challenges around this legislation is that we've been having to legislate for things that will potentially happen in the future and I agree with the evidence issue and it is a challenging bit but that's what brought problems for the 2002 act and that's why we're having to address it now Thank you, minister Burgess I now call Christine Grahame in fact to wind up by pressing or withdrawing amendment 13 on the basis that the amendment is deemed to in fact have been moved I didn't actually move it I think that Christine Grahame the member did speak to the amendment what's reasonable I'll do what's never necessary to move us along so I'm not pressing it and I'm not winding up Christine Grahame seeks to withdraw amendment 13 does any member object no member objects amendment 13 is therefore withdrawn I call amendment 14 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 13 minister to move formally move, Presiding Officer the question is that amendment 14 be agreed to are we all agreed the Parliament is not agreed there will be a division members should cast their vote now I call co-cav Stuart yes the vote is now closed thank you the result of the vote on amendment 14 in the name of Mary McCallan is yes 92 no 29 there were no abstentions the amendment is therefore agreed I now move to group 9 exception for training dogs I call amendment 97 in the name of Rachel Hamilton in a group on its own and I call Rachel Hamilton to move and to speak to amendment 97 thank you Presiding Officer amendment 97 in my name creates an exception to allow the use of more than two dogs when training a juvenile dog it also outlines conditions within this exception which must be met in order to make such an activity lawful this amendment is necessary to ensure dogs can be trained carry out specific tasks which are essential to the management of wildlife or the protection of livestock and crops without it this bill will place severely restrictive limits on the ability to train dogs for these purposes and I move the amendment in my name thank you Ms Hamilton and I call the minister thank you Presiding Officer I'll start by saying that the wording of this amendment isn't clear so I'm grateful for Rachel Hamilton's explanation however my reading is that in contrast to other exceptions which refer to searching for stalking or flushing wild mammal the amendment here does not specify what using more than two dogs might entail it appears that a person could use a pack of dogs to do any activity whatsoever as long as they could argue that they were training a juvenile dog for a lawful hunting purpose I fear that this would open a significant loophole which could potentially be used as a cover for illegal hunting exactly what we are trying to stop there's also other significant issues with the drafting of this amendment for example there is no definition of juvenile dog left open to interpretation again introducing a level of ambiguity for enforcement that this bill of course sought to remove the specificity and the clarity of language used in this bill has been praised widely and is one of the reasons why Police Scotland have said it will make enforcement easier and for those reasons I will not support amendment 97 thank you minister and I call on Rachel Hamilton to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 97 no further comments I press thank you miss Hamilton the question is that amendment 97 be agreed to are we all agreed the Parliament is not agreed there will be a division and members should cast their vote now I call co-captured no the vote is now closed thank you the result of the vote on amendment 97 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is yes 29 no 92 there were no abstentions amendment 97 is therefore not agreed we now move to group 10 on court orders I call amendment 15 in the name of Arian Burgess grouped with amendment 16, 98, 99, 17 and 18 and I call Arian Burgess to move amendment 15 and to speak to all amendments in the group miss Burgess thank you my amendments in this grouping are about ensuring that when an offence has been committed animal there is considered by the courts in the sentencing process I'd like to thank the minister for working with me to bring an improved version of these to stage 3 as a minister explained to the committee during stage 1 the proceeds of crime scotland act 1995 applies to this bill therefore the courts have the power to confiscate property used to commit an offence under the bill such as a quad bike deprivation orders and seizure orders result in the offenders dog or horse being taken away from them so they can't use that animal to offend again my amendment 15 and 17 add to the conditions on those orders so that a court must consider the need to ensure the welfare of the dog or horse regardless of whether they ultimately order it to be put down, sold or anything else amendment 16 and 18 tidy up the text which is replicated in 15 and 17 because of the way my amendment is drafted the welfare considerations do not trump other considerations such as the likelihood of the person continuing to use the animal to commit crimes in the future the court will simply be required to consider the welfare of the dog or horse alongside all other relevant factors when making its decision I believe these amendments strike a balance between giving the courts the power to sanction people by removing their property while recognising that seizing animals such as horses and dogs will have an impact not just on the owner but on the animal itself and I move my amendment 15, 16, 17 and 18 I now call on Edward Mountain to speak to amendment 98 and other amendments in the group Thank you Presiding Officer firstly to speak to my amendment in section 17 my amendment 98 inserts a clause which would ensure that the court must state a reason for issuing a disqualification order in the legislation as drafted it has to give a reason why it does not issue a disqualification order I think it's fair and equitable that they give a reason why as well my amendment 99 seeks to give some guidance to the court on what would be a reasonable period of disqualification from owning a dog or horse I don't believe that just leaving it open and it is fair first and second offences would be up to 18 months a third offence three years and a fourth at the discretion of the court I believe that sliding scale allows people who perhaps for a first offence and didn't mean for that offence to occur wouldn't be precluded from owning a dog forever that would be a severe blow to many people on Ariane Burgess' amendments I'd be interested to hear the minister's comments particularly on those because there is within the bill a certain description on disqualification and destruction of horses and dogs and I would like to hear if the minister feels those are sufficient because the welfare of those animals must be paramount Presiding Officer and one other member has pressed to speak so I call on Colin Smyth for a brief contribution Mr Smyth I support amendments 15 and 17 and the subsequent consequential amendments 16 and 18 in the name of Ariane Burgess The bill in its current form only refers to the destruction of a dog or horse and it's important that the welfare of those animals is also considered in the case of a sale or another disposal ordered by the court not only those resulting in the destruction of the animal as is currently drafted therefore support those amendments amendment 98 and 99 in the name of Edward Mountain I believe seeks to constrain the discretion of the Scottish courts with regards to post-conviction orders which would not allow the courts to take all the relevant circumstances into account therefore do not support those two amendments Thank you Mr Smyth I call on the minister Thank you Presiding Officer Firstly as to Ariane Burgess amendments I listened very carefully to her reasons at stage 2 for her proposed amendments I said at the time that whilst the wording didn't work I supported the principle and would be happy to work with her as head of stage 3 I understand that when considering deprivation and seizure orders in relation to animals the courts routinely take into account the welfare of the animal to which those orders apply however these amendments make such consideration clear on the face of the bill it's clear to me as has been by Ariane Burgess that while deprivation or seizure orders can relate to inanimate objects when we are discussing live sentient animals we should have heightened regard for their welfare and therefore glad to have worked with Ariane Burgess on the amendments and to support them as to Edward Mountain's amendment 98 this would require the court to give reasons where it makes a disqualification order on a first offence this amendment is unnecessary because the courts generally provide reasons for any penalty or sentence that they choose to impose however with that being said I know that the animal health and welfare Scotland act 2006 also imposes a duty on the courts to give their reasons for issuing a disqualification order and so in this occasion I am content to support this amendment however I cannot similarly support Edward Mountain's amendment 99 which seeks to limit for which a disqualification order may be granted in various circumstances as Colin Smith said this would unnecessarily and unjustifiably fetter the discretion of the court when considering the appropriate period of time for which an order should be given effect there may be many circumstances in which a long period of disqualification is appropriate even for a first offence and in any case a number of factors will be taken into account by the court when considering the appropriate sentence and it's not for us to disqualify the court's discretion in that regard I call on Arianne Burgess to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 15 Thank you I would reiterate the point that animal welfare should be born in mind by the courts when issuing sentences as after all it's not the dog or horse that is guilty but the person who used them to hunt in that light I thank the minister for my amendments and I move amendment 15 and accompanying amendments Thank you Mr Burgess The question is that amendment 15 be agreed to Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed there will be a division Members should cast their vote now I call Cocab Stewart Yes The vote is now closed I call Katie Clark I'm afraid we don't seem to be able to connect with Ms Clark I would have voted yes Ms Clark I would have voted yes That will be recorded Thank you The result of the vote on amendment 15 In the name of Arianne Burgess is yes 92, no 29 There were no abstentions The amendment is therefore agreed I call amendment 16 I call Cocab Stewart Yes The vote is now closed Thank you The result of the vote on amendment 16 In the name of Arianne Burgess is yes 91, no 22 I call Cocab Stewart I'm afraid we don't seem to be able to connect with Ms Clark I'm afraid we don't seem to be able to connect with Ms Clark I'm afraid we don't seem to be able to connect with Ms Clark I would have voted yes 91, no 29 There were no abstentions The amendment is therefore agreed I call amendment 98 In the name of Edward Mountain Already debated with amendment 15 Edward Mountain to move or not move Move The question is that amendment 98 We agreed to We are not The Parliament is not agreed There will be a division Yes The vote is now closed Thank you The result of the vote on amendment 98 In the name of Edward Mountain is yes 92, no 28 There were no abstentions The amendment is therefore agreed I call amendment 99 In the name of Edward Mountain Already debated with amendment 15 Edward Mountain to move or not move Move The question is that amendment 99 We agreed to The Parliament is not agreed There will be a division Members should cast their vote now I call cocavs Chirt Thank you Ms Chirt The vote is now closed Thank you I couldn't refresh my app I would have voted no That will be recorded The result of the vote on amendment 99 In the name of Edward Mountain Is yes 92, there were no abstentions The amendment is therefore not agreed I call amendment 17 In the name of Arian Burgess Already debated with amendment 16 Arian Burgess to move or not move Move The question is that amendment 17 Be agreed to The Parliament is not agreed There will be a division Members should cast their vote now I call cocavs Chirt Yes The vote is now closed Thank you The result of the vote on amendment 17 In the name of Arian Burgess Is yes, 89, no, 30 There were no abstentions The amendment is therefore agreed I call amendment 18 In the name of Arian Burgess Already debated with amendment 15 Arian Burgess to move or not move Thank you Ms Burgess The question is that amendment 18 Be agreed to There will be a division Members should cast their vote now I call cocavs Chirt Yes The vote is now closed I call Hamza Yousif My only digital platform did not connect But I voted yes Thank you Mr Yousif That vote will be recorded Thank you The result of the vote on amendment 18 In the name of Arian Burgess Is yes, 91, no, 28 I call amendment 101 In the name of Rachel Hamilton Already debated with amendment 95 Rachel Hamilton to move or not move Thank you Ms Hamilton The question is that amendment 101 Be agreed to The Parliament is not agreed There will be a division Members should cast their vote now I call cocavs Chirt The vote is now closed Thank you The result of the vote on amendment 101 In the name of Rachel Hamilton Is yes, 30, no, 89 There were no abstentions The amendment is therefore not agreed I call amendment 103 In the name of Rachel Hamilton Already debated with amendment 95 Rachel Hamilton to move or not move Moved The question is that amendment 103 Be agreed to The Parliament is not agreed There will be a division Members should cast their vote now Thank you Ms Chirt The vote is now closed Point of order, Kevin Stewart To come through, it's fine Thank you, the result of the vote On amendment 101 In the name of Rachel Hamilton Is yes, 103 In the name of Rachel Hamilton Is yes, 28, no, 91 There were no abstentions The amendment is therefore not agreed I call amendment 104 In the name of Rachel Hamilton Already debated with amendment 95 Rachel Hamilton to move Or not move The question is that amendment 104 Be agreed to The Parliament is not agreed There will be a division Members should cast their vote now I call Co-Cab Stewart No The vote is now closed Thank you The result of the vote on amendment 104 In the name of Rachel Hamilton Is yes, 29, no, 91 There were no abstentions The amendment is therefore not agreed I call amendment 100 In the name of Rachel Hamilton Already debated with amendment 95 Rachel Hamilton to move Or not move The question is that amendment 100 Be agreed to The Parliament is not agreed There will be a division Members should cast their vote now I call Co-Cab Stewart The vote is now closed Thank you The result of the vote on amendment 100 In the name of Rachel Hamilton Is yes, 29, no, 91 There were no abstentions The amendment is therefore not agreed I call amendment 102 In the name of Rachel Hamilton Already debated with amendment 95 Rachel Hamilton to move Or not move The question is that amendment 102 Be agreed to The Parliament is not agreed There will be a division Members should cast their vote now I call Co-Cab Stewart No The vote is now closed Thank you The result of the vote on amendment 102 In the name of Rachel Hamilton Is yes, 29, no, 91 There were no abstentions The amendment is therefore not agreed I turn to the last group Group 11 On the Crown application I call amendment 105 In the name of Arianne Burgess Grouped with amendment 106 I call on Arianne Burgess to move amendment 105 To speak to both amendments in the group Ms Burgess Presiding Officer Section 25 would establish a two-tier system In which law enforcement officers Must obtain special permission To enter Crown land But not any other land To investigate any potential offences Law should apply equally to everyone But section 25 creates a loophole That could make it easier for any illegal Hunting activities on Crown land To evade prosecution Be that by persons in service To the Crown or anybody hunting with dogs On Crown land The ferret revealed that Registered fox hunts have recently been allowed On land owned by forestry and land Scotland which is Crown land Police must be able to enter On to that land to investigate Any reports of fox hunting Or other suspicious hunting with dogs They shouldn't be impeded By requiring consent From the relevant authority When it comes to protecting animal welfare There should be no loopholes Not even for the Crown I urge members to support my amendment 105 to remove section 25 And my amendment 106 Is consequential on removing section 25 I move my amendment 105 Thank you Ms Burgess And I call the minister Thank you, Presiding Officer I understand Arianne Burgess' concerns And the reasons why she has lodged These amendments And I have carefully assessed the effect Of the amendment and whether there's any need For them Now it's often necessary to make Special provision about Crown land Primarily for reasons of national security In particular as regards The private states of the king And also Importantly ministry of defence Land as is the case here And I should be clear that the Existing requirement for Police Scotland To gain consent before entering Crown land Does not prohibit entry But simply sets a precondition For entry Ms Burgess' amendment if passed Would remove the requirement for Police Scotland To have permission to enter Crown land Including MOD land To investigate offences under the bill I don't think that seeking Authorisation from the body Responsible for the land would undermine The operation of the bill Moreover the provisions in the bill Reflect the careful balancing exercise Of ensuring the effective Investigation of offences On the one hand While not impinging on security And safety considerations For example military exercises Being carried out on MOD land The provisions in the bill as they stand Are in keeping with that contained In other wildlife and forestry legislation Such as the Wildlife Countryside Act 1981 Dear Scotland Act 96 And the Forestry and Land Management Scotland Act 2018 And the mirror the approach taken In other acts passed more recently By the Scottish Parliament including the hate crime In public order Scotland Act of 21 And the fireworks and pyrotechnics Scotland Act of 2822 I'd also point out That the protection of wild mammals Scotland Act 2002 The bill we are seeking to replace That did not bind the crown in any way So today's bill represents a significant Shift towards applying provisions To crown land and for all those reasons I cannot support the amendment Thank you minister I call on Arian Burgess to wind up Into press or withdraw amendment 105 Miss Burgess Thank you and I thank the minister For her response Presiding Officer, the law should apply Equally to everyone There shouldn't be one system For the crown and a different system For the public and we shouldn't restrict The police in carrying out their duties Even on crown land and that's why I brought in amendment 106 So it doesn't remove provision for Police Scotland to enter crown land I move amendment 105 Thank you miss Burgess The question is that amendment 105 Be agreed to are we all agreed The Parliament is not agreed There will be a division and members Should cast their vote now I call co-cab Stewart No The vote is now closed Thank you, the result of the vote on amendment Oliver Mundell Point of order, Presiding Officer Presiding Officer, I would have voted No, my app doesn't seem to have registered a vote Thank you Mr Mundell Your vote will be recorded The result of the vote on amendment 105 in the name of Arrian Burgess is yes 26, no 93 There were no abstentions, the amendment Is therefore not agreed I call amendment 106 in the name Of Arrian Burgess already debated With amendment 105, Arrian Burgess To move or not move The question is that amendment 106 Be agreed to are we all agreed The Parliament is not agreed There will be a division, members Should cast their vote now No The vote is now closed Point of order, Rachel Hamilton I would have voted No, my app didn't work Thank you Ms Hamilton Your vote will be recorded Thank you, the result of the vote On amendment 106 in the name of Arrian Burgess is yes 27, no 92 There were no abstentions, the amendment Is therefore not agreed And that ends stage 3 Consideration of the Bill Pause before we move on to the next Item of business, thank you As members will be aware At this point in the proceedings I'm required understanding orders to decide Whether or not in my view any provision Of the Bill relates to a protected subject matter That is whether it modifies the electoral system And franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections In the case of this Bill In my view no provision of the hunting with dogs Scotland Bill relates to a protected subject matter Therefore the Bill does not require a super majority To be passed at stage 3 Before I invite the minister to open the debate I call on Michael Matheson to signify Crown consent to the Bill Cabinet secretary For the purposes of rule point 11 Of the standing orders, I advise the Parliament That His Majesty having been informed Of the purports of the hunting with dogs Scotland Bill has consented to place His prerogative and interests Insoffar is there affected by the Bill At the disposal of the Parliament For the purposes of the Bill Thank you We move on to the next item of business Which is a debate on motion 7600 In the name of Mary McCallan On hunting with dogs Scotland Bill at stage 3 I invite members who wish to speak In the debate to press their request to speak buttons And I call on Mary McCallan To speak to and move the motion Minister I am pleased to present My first Bill to the Scottish Parliament And to open the stage 3 Debate on the hunting with dogs Scotland Bill As members will be aware The Bill was originally Scheduled to be introduced in 2020 However, owing to the pandemic It had to be delayed With that in mind, I'd like to thank My predecessor, Mary Gougeon For the significant part that she played In developing the provisions For us this afternoon Because today's debate Is the culmination of an eight-year process Of consultation and policy development That started with a Government commitment In December 2015 To review the protection of wild mammals Scotland Act 2002 It included an independent review Of the 2002 act undertaken By Lord Bonomy And two public consultations Which between them received Over 25,000 responses The large number of responses clearly demonstrates That there is and continues to be A significant level of public interest In this legislation I've always been very mindful of that And when I took over responsibility For this policy, I committed to Listening to all views And seeking consensus where possible Over the last year and a half I've met with a wide range of organisations And individuals both supportive And with concerns about the proposals As far as it has been possible I've tried to address those concerns In both the bill as introduced And in amendments both tabled And accepted I know that the rural affairs, islands And natural environment committee has done similarly And I'd like to thank it For its careful scrutiny And consideration of the bill I'm grateful too for the support That I've received from MSPs From across the chamber on my amendments And I'd like to thank members of all parties With whom I've had productive discussions Throughout the bill's passage That's led to agreement on constructive amendments That I have no doubt have improved the bill Now, there is no doubt That there has been a clear cultural shift In our attitude towards wildlife Over the last few decades Practices such as hair coursing, fox hunting Badger baiting and dogfighting Which were once legal activities And quite unbelievably Considered to be spectator sports They are no longer acceptable Has now been over Twenty years since the protection Of wild mammals bill was introduced To the Scottish Parliament Making Scotland the first part Of the UK to ban fox hunting And paving the way for today's bill I'm proud to say that since the passage Of that act a whole generation has been born And grown up in a Scotland Where the barbaric practice Of using a dog to chase and kill Wild mammals has been illegal It's clear from the correspondence That I received Members of the public didn't understand Why we needed new provisions They believed that the activities were already illegal However, as Lord Bonomy highlighted In his report and as we've heard Evidence from many including Police Scotland The protection of wild mammals Scotland Acts which at the time was rightly regarded As pioneering was flawed And these flaws have meant That it's not had the impact It was intended to If my bill, if this bill sorry Is passed tonight, I firmly believe That it would have an immediate effect By modernising and strengthening the legislation To assist enforcement authorities In dealing with those Who would persist in illegal hunting I know that some people Continue to have concerns About the potential impact That the bill will have on lawful pursuits Such as rough shooting And I've listened carefully to those Who have expressed such concerns And I understand that the root of those concerns I have said all along That the Government appreciates The contribution that rural sports Make to our economy And that we do not intend To ban recreational activities Finlay Carson I thank you for taking the intervention You said that you listened to stakeholders So can you tell us exactly What changes you brought Forward in the legislation That was actually going to stop Effectively banning What is carried out legally Minister I have had extensive engagement With stakeholders On all aspects of the bill And probably none more so than on rough shooting Not least in the additional scrutiny session That Finlay Carson, as convener, conducted And the purpose of that Has been to explain to stakeholders How it can still take place within the bill And equally I've committed to working With industry on guidance going forward So that they understand what to expect Following its passage But I've also been clear That I understand the need To control predators, to protect livestock And that it's sometimes necessary To manage both native And non-native species In order to protect vulnerable birds Such as carlows, lapwings, capricaili And others. I believe that the new Two-dog limit, in conjunction With a practical and effective But narrowly defined licensing scheme Will allow the effective balance And Will protect wildlife Whilst facilitating legal control On the other hand I've also listened to concerns Raised by animal welfare organisations Such as the SSPCA, one kind And the League Against Cruel Sports That the 2002 act did not put a stop To illegal hunting Unless we build in stringent safeguards Then those activities would continue That's why the bill sets A two-dog limit That's why it restricts the circumstances In which a licence can be available And why it gives NatureScot The power to limit the number Of days a licence can be issued For and to impose conditions Such as the maximum number Of dogs and guns It's also why the bill contains Provision to ban trail hunting I've talked about the need to Ensure the highest standard Of wild mammal welfare And about the need to engage To manage wildlife. These are not Exclusive. The bill has been designed To ensure that where it is necessary The use of dogs to controlled wildlife Is done in a manner That does not lead to unnecessary Suffering. I've said it before, but it bears Repeating now that the chasing And the killing of wild mammals With packs of dogs has no place In modern Scotland. Members From all parties across the chamber Voted to support the general principles Of the hunting with dogs bill And at this final stage I would urge all members to Again vote in support of it And I move that the Parliament agrees That the hunting with dogs Scotland Will be passed. Thank you. I now call on Rachel Hamilton. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Fourteen years after the Scottish Parliament Passed the protection of wild mammals act The Scottish Government asked the Bonomy to review the act And report on how it could be improved. Bonomy's review identified The needs and uncertainties In the operation of the 2002 act And that is what this bill seeks to address. However, it also Unequivocally recognised the need To control wild mammal populations And the important role that legal And restrained hunting can play In providing that management. This debate provotes passionate views And I completely understand why We're all invested in the protection of animals And the need to prevent cruelty But the framing of this debate Overlooks the practicalities And the realities. It is often presented as a one track Issue, a narrow issue Where we can either be pro Or against animal welfare And I'm afraid that argument is flawed It doesn't help anybody It doesn't help animal welfare It does not serve our farmers on the front line And it does not help biodiversity Or our environment If this was a straightforward choice Between protecting animal welfare or not 100% behind protecting animal welfare But it is not And we do this parliament A disservice by pretending it is This debate is so often framed Around hunting for sport But what we are discussing here today Is far removed from that This bill should really be about the balance Between animal welfare and biodiversity If there is no hunting with dogs Predators will be left to attack Other animals. Those predators Left unchecked Or attack livestock Like lambs and sheep Or ground nesting birds Like the curle or the capecalee And other vulnerable species This is not a simple bill That protects animal welfare It's a bill that protects some animals Welfare at the expense of others Then there is a damage to biodiversity Our environment and crops If controlled hunting to curb predators Is no longer allowed The RSPB recently warned Inabundance since 1994 We should look at why this has happened Scotland ranks 212 out of 240 countries And territories for biodiversity We should be asking If this bill will improve that record Or as I fear it will keep us lagging Behind the rest of the world When we consider the changes to this bill We should look at the important role of Managed hunting in Scotland's wildlife Conservation toolkit Yet the bill we are considering today That toolkit Just when we need it the most Placing further restrictions on our ability To effectively manage wildlife At a time when iconic species Such as the capecalee are under threat Of extinction is plainly irresponsible One of the primary drivers Of population decline in capecalee Among other ground nesting birds Is predation by foxes Yet the ability to prevent that predation Which was allowed by the 2002 act Is harmed by this bill Since it places restrictions on how dogs Can be used to control predators In the context of protecting vulnerable species I'm not going to, I'm afraid My time's been cut During the debate at stage 1 Of this bill the minister informed The chamber that she'd studied the 2002 act During her legal training Because it was a prime example of poorly drafted Legislation full of deficiencies And legal uncertainty That the bill we have before us today Will be studied by ecologists In years to come as a bill that ignored The views of experts and pinned The final nail in the coffin for many Of Scotland's endangered species It is a bill that ignores the realities Of hunting with dogs outlined by Organisations such as the SEA BASC and the NFUS and others While legislating on matters Which seem to be misunderstood By key decision makers As I've mentioned during stage 1 proceedings Animal welfare has been at the heart Of this debate. I've already discussed The havoc wrought upon vulnerable species And the NFUS have voiced concern About the effects of this bill On the ability of farmers to protect Livestock. Presiding Officer, I will come to a close Because I know time is tight. The Scottish Government may have been right To revisit the 2002 protections Of wild mammals act off the back Of the Bonomy review. But it has been done in a way That typically of this S&P Government Ignored the evidence around the issue With the views of countless stakeholders And rural Scotland ignored We don't have faith in this bill It will not help animal welfare And we fear it will have a negative impact On biodiversity, on natural environment And those who protect its support And look after it. Thank you. I know Colin Smith. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In 2002 this Parliament sought To end the barbaric practice Of mounted hunts using packs of dogs To chase foxes to exhaustion And then for those dogs to be set On the fox to brutally kill it. Two decades on some hunts continued To ride roughshod over the letter And the spirit of that ban. Today was a chance to write this wrong To scrap the loopholes being exploited To end the cruelty of hunting With packs of dogs once and for all But sadly this bill does not do that. It won't close all the loopholes It won't end the use of packs of dogs It merely licences them Presiding Officer, you cannot Licence cruelty You can't say on the one hand That using a pack of dogs is cruel Because it increases the risk of dogs chasing And killing a wild mammal But on the other hand say We're going to continue to allow packs of dogs To be used if the hunt has a licence Handing out a licence Won't make that any less cruel Those who have exploited The current legislation passed over 20 years ago Will do all they can To exploit this legislation Through licensing And they have every reason to believe That could well be successful Because the SNP and Tories wouldn't accept amendments That sought to ensure any licensing Application would be subject To best practice and ethical Wildlife management Even though that is a direction of travel I'm confident we will ultimately go NatureScot when they gave evidence To the committee said that their approach Is a quote fairly well aligned With those ethical principles Well today was a test Of how committed the government are to that approach And they have not met that test When the minister gave evidence to the committee On the 29th of June she said A licence has to be construed As the option that is available When there are no other options But this bill is almost silent On the criteria to determine this And an opportunity to do so That a last resort has been missed The bill also contains A number of cruel exemptions Such as continuing to allow birds of prey As a method of killing Which is no less cruel than using dogs to kill And allows the continuation Of the use of dogs below ground To control wild mammals The bill may well limit the number of dogs Below ground to one But if it's cruel to use more than one dog Below ground then it's cruel to use Any number of dogs below ground To say that you can control a dog Below ground that won't see you Or won't hear you And the government now admit this With the revised explanatory notes To the bill The bill does improve however on existing legislation With the limit in most cases But sadly not all to the use of two dogs For searching and flushing out foxes And the inclusion of new offences That will prevent trail hunting Emerging in Scotland as it has in England The bill has also strengthened The legislation has introduced As a result of amendments By several members. I'm pleased My amendments to review, licensing Every five years has been accepted As has my amendments to make sure That dogs are not used to kill injured animals Presiding officer Ending hunting with packs of dogs Was unfinished business When this bill was first proposed There's no place in modern Scotland That is the view of the public Urban and the vast majority Those of us who represent rural areas No, it's not who we are And it's not what our communities believe in This bill does nudge the bar well Towards less hunting with packs of dogs So it will receive Labour's support But the use of licensing does mean The risk remains and an opportunity End it once and for all Has been missed so sadly It does remain unfinished business Presiding officer I want to end by thanking those Who've contributed to this bill To be such an important part Living and working in our country Including those tasked with managing our land And the many animal welfare charities Such as League Against Cruel Sports One kind and others who give a voice To those who can't speak for themselves In campaign with such passion Day in and day out I'm really proud of that campaign What they do to improve animal welfare But we have some way to go My advice to them is keep up the fight Thank you No call on Arianne Burgess Thank you Presiding officer for the last majority Of the Scottish public It's unacceptable that fox hunting Still takes place in our country Most of us believed that fox hunting Was banned just over 20 years ago But loophalls in the law Have enabled fox hunting to continue On horseback or on foot Under the cover of legal activities Today these loophalls begin to narrow The hunting with dogs bill The police and courts Prosecute illegal activity It will give greater protection To foxes, hares, badgers And other wild animals This is thanks to the tireless Campaigning of animal welfare organisations Such as League Against Cruel Sports One kind and Scottish badgers And it's thanks to the Scottish Government For their strong position That chasing and killing wild mammals With dogs has no place In modern Scotland The bill has been strengthened Through the parliamentary process We've added a duty to review the licensing Scheme and take the required action Which could potentially mean removing it Altogether and through my amendments We've added a duty on the courts To consider animal welfare Sentencing The bill is an improvement On what's currently in place But will it stop fox hunting? Sadly that remains to be seen Despite the best efforts Of the Scottish Greens and Labour To close the loopholes The bill still contains many That are bound to be exploited By those who are determined To continue their cruel pastime I tried to remove the exceptions That allow forms of hunting With dogs for sport Hunting with dogs underground And hunting with dogs under licence I tried to remove the requirement For the police to obtain special permission To investigate any hunting With dogs on crown Or government land This isn't a hypothetical concern Fox hunts have been allowed On land owned by Forestry and Land Scotland So I set up additional barriers To investigating such cases Why create a loophole for the crown King Charles previously lobbied To scrap the Westminster Bill to ban fox hunting in England and Wales But in Scotland 87% of people And 100% of young people Want fox hunting band The Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government Must be able to develop and pass our own laws To set the direction of travel For the Scotland that we want And the Scottish public want to see in the future Without our democracy being undermined By interference from Westminster Or by historic privileges For the monarchy For those of us in this chamber Who want this country to gain independence I ask you Would we want fox hunting to continue In independent Scotland? Of course not If we want to live in a modern independent Scotland We must start legislating For that future The upcoming species licence review Which the minister spoke about earlier today A commitment of the Scottish Government And Greens will be the next opportunity To take a closer look At licensed hunting and push For the ethical wildlife management We must monitor The impact of this bill closely Through the licensing scheme Any evidence that it's being used as a loophole Must be acted on immediately Instead of waiting 20 more years Presiding officer The Scottish Greens have always taken a strong position Against blood sports That's why they're excluded From the Bute House agreement So we can go further to stamp out animal cruelty The Greens are determined To end licensed hunting With dogs as soon as practically possible And to finally deliver A watertight ban on fox hunting Thank you I now call on Beatrice Wishart Thank you, Presiding Officer As deputy convener of the rain committee I thank the clerks, the bill team My committee colleagues and convener Finlay Carson for their work on the bill I'm grateful to all organisations And individuals who submitted evidence And provided briefings throughout the stages Of this bill Scottish Liberal Democrats support the aims Of the hunting with dog Scotland bill That has been set up in consistencies In the previous 2002 act In a way that balances the need To protect animal welfare With the need for effective pest control In our rural and agricultural areas Scottish Liberal Democrats are in favour Of a workable licensing scheme Based on evidence That enables the use of more than two dogs In certain circumstances A sensible scheme is needed to ensure That effective pest control can continue The proposed licensing scheme Reflects evidence that the committee heard That more than two dogs are required In some instances to flush a wild mammal From cover for quick flushing and dispatch The initial draft stated Licences for management of wild mammals Would be granted for 14 days Within 14 consecutive days From conversations with stakeholders This appeared unnecessarily restrictive I supported amendments From the minister at stage 2 To change this to 14 days In six consecutive months I believe that This gives the necessary flexibility To create a workable licensing scheme For pest control Another aspect of the licence Is that an application for a licence Can be made by a sole landowner Or jointly by a group of landowners Or by the person who will carry out The hunting activity With permission of the landowner A key consideration for the licence Is the terrain where the activity Will take place So licences will correspond To a particular area The requirement to get landowner permission For hunting with dogs was unclear to me In situations where there are joint landowners For one piece of land Or where a piece of land is split Between multiple landowners I laid amendments at stage 2 To clarify this I was satisfied with the minister's explanation That when interpreting legislation The use of the singular Includes the plural and vice versa This means that reference to getting permission From the landowner can be read as owners Depending on circumstances I'm grateful to the minister For meeting with me to discuss the bill And providing explanations of our amendments At stage 1 I called for criteria to be developed For the licensing scheme In collaboration with stakeholders I welcome the minister's commitment To working with stakeholders To create guidance on licensing The committee also heard About rough shooting and concerns About how it will operate under the bill And I welcome the minister's commitment That she will continue to work with industry On this issue We did not support amendments today Which would further expand or restrict The current scope of the bill And we believe that it achieves its aims To balance priorities We supported amendments creating obligations On Scottish ministers to conduct reviews Every five years of the licensing scheme's operation And to report on part One of the bill within two years Reporting and analysis are important To ensure that the bill achieves its aims And licences are workable Presiding officer Respecting and enabling those Who make their living off the land at the same time As having good animal welfare standards Are not mutually exclusive The vast majority of people Who work on the land Live in harmony with that land Scottish Liberal Democrats Will support the hunting with dogs Bill to date at stage 3 Thank you We now move to winding up speeches And I call on Edward Mountain Thank you Presiding Officer And as I've only been allowed two minutes For my closing, I'm afraid I will take no interventions I have to say from the beginning I'm deeply disappointed by the final drafting Of this bill following the stage 3 scrutiny I don't support animals cruelty But what this bill has done Is seriously limited our ability To manage wildlife Thus putting at risk the protection enhancements Of our native flora and fauna The Parliament In their wish to ban mounted hunts Has shown the true divide I believe Between the countryside and urban voters Here we are, spending hours Discussing hunting with dogs While the NHS is under pressure School teachers are on strike And our ferry service crumbles It has also shown this whole debate How tone death the government Is in terms of the countryside I believe a bill Fueled by ideology and not practicality Presiding Officer I cannot and will not support this bill I'm afraid it will lead To a further disconnect Between our countryside And the urban areas A disconnect I believe this Government Will ultimately answer for Thank you Presiding Officer Thank you And I call on the minister to wind up Thank you Presiding Officer It has been a genuine privilege To work on the hunting with Dogs Scotland Bill and in closing I'd like to Thank all stakeholders with whom I've had extensive engagement I'd also like to thank The Scottish Government Government Bill team who have worked incredibly hard I hope they will take tonight off Before we get back to Grousemoor reform Tomorrow, no I just But in all seriousness there is a huge amount Of work involved and I'd like to thank The Scottish Government for that Presiding Officer my motivation From the beginning has been to Finally end illegal hunting With Dogs in Scotland Which as we know has been illegal For 20 years But despite best efforts Has persisted in Scotland This bill therefore sought to Close loopholes from previous legislation As well as take action to Prevent others from opening Future proofing as it were So when steering the bill through My officials and I have sought from the very beginning To end illegal activity once and for all And that in the pursuit Of the highest animal welfare standards But without unduly impinging On legal and legitimate activity Acknowledging the needs of Farmers, land managers And environmental groups And this has required Widespread engagement with stakeholders And other MSPs It's required close attention to the committee observations And the sessions they undertook And it has acquired assessment ultimately Of what are finely balanced issues An example of that is one of the principal provisions In the bill, the two dog limit It puts the onus of control Far more on the person purporting to hunt And it makes detection of a breach Far more readily detectable By law enforcement It's a significant step forward But in instituting the two dog limit I would not ignore evidence of Lord May as regards terrain And that in certain circumstances Two dogs would not be sufficient So it's right that it applies Consistently across the piece In all types of hunting And without exceptions applied to certain types As was called upon for rough shooting Equally the licensing scheme provides That very narrow, drawn but workable solution As the bill provides There is no other work effective Option Likewise I have sought to strike The best possible progress On the issues of dogs under ground I heard the welfare concerns on one hand But equally the lack of alternative options On the other And the risks of worsening Welfare outcomes Therefore I worked to find a solution Which protected the welfare of dogs And the fox as far as possible Including by reducing the number of dogs to one Excluding mink from the exception And providing conditions on ensuring welfare Again, in trail hunting We have preempted potential loopholes We have recognised what has happened In England and we have taken action To stop it happening here We have future proofed that By further taking a regulation making power For any future issues on drag hunting And again I'd like to thank my colleague Christine Grahame for her work On that I am a little disappointed That the opposition have descended Into a little bit of negativity In their closing comments And to talk to that I would like to quote Lord Bonomy Who said May I say that I regard the bill As a very well crafted piece of legislation It solves the problems that I identified About the loose and variable use of language It makes everything much clearer and simpler Which in itself should be a great incentive For better enforcement of the law Because the police and the Crown Office And Procurator Fiscal Service Were struggling with the effective Detection and prosecution In closing On 13 February 2002 Our predecessors In this Parliament voted to pass The protection of wild mammals at Scotland Act 2002 And I hope that we will follow Their lead today and vote to pass The Hunting with Dogs Scotland Bill Thank you That concludes the debate On Hunting with Dogs Scotland Bill At stage 3 It is now time to move on To the next item of business And I am minded to accept A motion without notice Under rule 11.2.4 To bring forward decision time to now And I invite the Minister for Parliamentary Business to move the motion I'm moved The question is that Decision time be brought forward to now Are we all agreed? We are agreed And there is one question to be put As a result of today's business The question is that In the name of Mary McCallan On Hunting with Dogs Scotland Bill be agreed And members should cast their votes now Before I close the vote I call Co-Cab Stewart to cast a proxy vote On behalf of Stuart McMillan Stuart McMillan votes yes Thank you The vote is closed The result of the vote On motion 7600 In the name of Mary McCallan Is yes 90 30 There were no abstentions The motion is therefore agreed And the Hunting with Dogs Scotland Bill is passed That concludes decision time And I close this meeting