 Good morning, everyone. Our single item of business this morning is the consideration of hunting with dog Scotland Bill at stage 2. I welcome to the meeting the minister for environment and land reform and our supporting officials. Before we begin, I'm going to briefly explain the stage 2 procedure for members and the public. There will be one debate on each group of amendments. I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in that group to speak to and move that amendment and speak to all the other amendments in that group. I will then call any other members who have lodged amendments in that group. Members who have not lodged amendments in the group but who wish to speak should catch my attention. If she's not already spoken on the group, I will then invite the minister to contribute to the debate. The debate on the group will be concluded by me inviting the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up. Following debate on each group, I will check whether the member who moved the first amendment in the group wishes to press to a vote or to withdraw it. If they wish to press ahead, I will put the question on that amendment. If a member wishes to withdraw their amendment after it has been moved, they must seek the agreement of other members to do so. If any member objects, the committee immediately moves to the vote on the amendment. If any member does not want to move their amendment when called, they should say not moved. Please note that any other member present may move such an amendment. If no member moves the amendment, I will immediately call the next amendment on the marshaled list. Only committee members are allowed to vote. Voting in any division is by show of hands, and it is important that members keep their hands clearly raised until the clerk has recorded the vote. The committee is required to indicate formally that it has considered and agreed each section of the bill, so I will put a question on each section at the appropriate point. It may not be possible to conclude stage 2 today's meeting, in which case we will do so at the meeting next week. I call amendment 131 in the name of Liam Kerr, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Liam Kerr to move amendment 131 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Thank you, convener, and good morning to the committee. I am very grateful to the committee for its consideration of my amendment 131. My thinking underlying the amendment was that section 1 of this bill concerns the creation of offences replacement for those offences set out in the protection of wild mammals Scotland Act 2002. That act states at section 1, a person who deliberately hunts a wild mammal with a dog commits an offence. However, its intended replacement, section 1 of the Hunting with Dogs Scotland Bill, provides that a person commits an offence if they are hunting a wild mammal using a dog, and none of the exceptions set out in section 356 or 7 of the bill apply. What appears to have been lost is that the bill, as drafted, does not include a requirement for knowledge of the intended use of the dog to form part of the offence of hunting a wild mammal. My amendment seeks to insert an additional criteria for the commission of the offence, namely that a person knows or ought to have known that hunting a wild mammal was the intended use of the dog. It is my view that this additional criteria will avoid the potential for members of the public to face prosecution for an offence in circumstances where the hunting of a wild mammal using a dog was not their intention. For example, where a dog gives chase to a wild mammal during the course of a walk for exercise purposes, it provides a clear distinction between those with an intention to hunt wild mammals and those without. It is my view that this requirement will enhance enforcement of the bill by ensuring that Police Scotland will be more readily able to identify perpetrators with knowledge of the intended use of the dog via evidence gathering. Briefly, I welcome the amendment as it intends to provide clarity. However, I have received some feedback from stakeholders that the definitions referenced in the amendment could be clearer, as they would like assurances that they need to be clear about what it does and does not constitute an offence under the terms of the bill. I would be happy to work with my colleague if Liam Coe would consider bringing back some stronger amendments with clearer definitions at stage 3. At this stage, I am minded possibly not to vote with Liam Coe on this amendment. I am very grateful for the intervention and the clarity that is shown by my friend Rachel Hamilton. I will take that on board as the debate progresses. I am very grateful for your thoughts, which I think are of course valuable as usual. On the other amendments in this group, amendments 58, 59, 60, 61 and 62 will add new exemptions for rabbits on to the face of the bill. The substantial amendment is amendment 62, which states that an exemption applies to the offence of a person hunting a wild mammal using a dog if a person is using a dog to hunt with rabbits. They have been granted permission to conduct the activity by the land owner where the hunt is taking place. Amendment 63 inserts after the and into the line. Hunting includes, in particular, searching for and coursing. My understanding is that the effect of that is that the term hunting in the bill would mean searching for wild mammals first, and then coursing afterwards. That is, I believe, a technical amendment that my colleague Edward Mountain will go on and explain the detail of. Amendment 64, 65, 66, 67 and 68 clarifies that the following animals are not included in the definition of wild mammals as set out on the face of the bill. Weasel, stout, mink, polecat and ferret. Those amendments were also submitted in the name of Edward Mountain. I believe that he will elaborate why those animals should not be included in the scope of the bill. Amendment 110 adds a line into section 2 of the bill, which states that any person who reasonably believed that their hunting would qualify for the exemptions under the bill must show evidence to support their position that they thought their activity was exempt. This section of the bill pertains to offences of knowingly causing or permitting another person to hunt using a dog, and section 110 would amend the defence available to a person charged under this section. I am very grateful to the committee for its consideration. I will leave it there. I call on Edward Mountain. Could you please move your motion? Edward Mountain, I call you to speak to amendment 58 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener, and thank you to the committee for allowing us to participate in this section, which is really important. Can I just say that a lot of my amendments within this section deal with rabbits, and I want to deal with those first and then move to the other amendments, and I will deal with section amendment 63 separately. So during the course of the evidence sessions that I've heard that this committee has considered in relation to the inclusion of rabbits within this bill, I find it really difficult to follow the reasoning behind that. First of all, I think those people who carry out legitimate activities in the countryside fully understand the difference between a hare and a rabbit. They are significantly different animals, and for those people that live in the countryside and work in the countryside, they understand that hares and rabbits actually live in different sort of habitats, because hares are an animal that like to flee and will flee above ground, which is why they live in open fields, and why they're seen so often in the spring in growing crops out in the middle of fields, whereas rabbits tend to live on woodland and field edges, which means that when you are carrying out activities to control rabbits, you can actually identify quite easily, probably starting off from the habitat that you're working in to the size of the animal, why rabbits are so different. Therefore, it becomes rather lazy in my mind to include rabbits, because I think the minister used the expression, they might be used as an excuse for coursing hares. That is not the case. It is like, I believe, somebody who lives in the countryside listening to people confuse the difference between hay and straw, and the difference between barley and wheat. They are substantially different, and therefore, I don't believe there is any reason to confligurate the two together. The only people who may do that, in my mind, are people who are actually trying to break the law and therefore will try and hide behind the fact that they are hunting for a rabbit when they're clearly not. Other reasons that I've heard, I think that coursing is carried out at night. I'm not sure how that happens, because coursing is carried out by sight. Yes, at night time, people will use lights, but those people using lights and coursing at night are the people who are breaking the law in the first place and shouldn't be allowed out and should be prosecuted. So I don't believe that there is any reason to have rabbits in. The other reason I have heard, though, is that rabbits suffer more pain than other animals, such as rats or mice. I don't believe that that is the case. I believe that, in this case, there is no evidence to suggest that rabbits suffer more than anyone else. So for that reason alone, I don't believe that it is competent to have them in. So I wish to see rabbits removed from this bill. Turning to the issue of the other animals, I have included weasels, stote, mink, polkats and ferrets. These are animals, polkats and ferrets, which will be domesticated animals that have gone wild. Stotes and weasels are an accepted form of problem. I believe a member of this committee might understand the problems of muslids on islands and the devastation that they can have to breeding bird populations. And they are animals that we are encouraged to control. And when it comes to mink, the government actually encourages people to control mink. In fact, in the Cairngorns there has been a mink eradication policy. There was a mink officer whose responsibility was to go around and encourage landowners to kill and remove mink, which again are non-native species that were introduced into this country and escaped from fur farms. So it seems perfectly sensible to allow mink, polkats, ferrets, stotes and weasels to be controlled, which under the face of the bill they're not allowed to be. The other point, Camino, I'd like to make because most of the other amendments in there under my name are technical amendments supporting it. Here's amendment 63, which if you look at the face of the bill means that if you are hunting animals and you flush it, that you are only committing an offence if you subsequently course it. So I don't believe it should be an offence to flush animals from thick growth. For example, a bramble bush, you may have more than two dogs working in it, which would flush an animal. And if you subsequently course it, then it could be argued that you're breaking the law, but you should not be breaking the law if you are flushing it. You should only be breaking the law if you follow the terms of this act if you subsequently course it. I would just say I'd be interested to hear what Colin Smyth says about amendment 110 about the evidence that will be required because it is not clear on the face of his amendment what evidence will be required, who will adjudicate that evidence and who will decide whether it is satisfactory. On the basis of that, I'm struggling to understand it, but I look forward to receiving more detail from my colleague when he talks to it. So those are the amendments that I wish to raise convener at this stage and I look forward to the opportunity to debate during this section. Thank you. I call Colin Smyth to speak to amendment 110 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener, and good morning to the committee. Thank you for considering my amendment. This morning, amendment 110 in my name relates to the defence for a person charged with an offence of hunting a wild animal. With a dog at present, the bill states that it is a defence for a person charged with an offence to show the, in a quote, reasonably believed that the exceptions in the bill apply. That effectively requires proof of an individual state of mind, which on its own is difficult to evidence. Amendment 110 simply seeks to shift the emphasis towards the grounds for that reasonable belief from subjective to objective and is capable of being demonstrated by the landowner rather than the current position in the bill, which requires you to speculate on the state of mind of a person who has or claims to have reasonably believed that the relevant exception applies. It therefore changes the emphasis from the person's assertion of their own belief to the available evidence that gives them the grounds for that reasonable belief. The evidence that would be required, of course, wouldn't be on this and would depend on the specific exception, but could be, for example, an email from the person using the dog or dogs to the landowner or occupy a state and the reason they are carrying out fox control on the land is due to the identification of a high level of predation of lambs on that land. As I have stated, the evidence would depend entirely on what the exception would be, but it would not be on this. The term reasonably believed, however, is open to interpretation and is difficult to quantify. I believe that it should be backed by evidence. My fear is failing to include a requirement for evidence that could allow for an unnecessary potential loophole in the legislation. Whatever position you take on hunting, I do not think that it is an amendment that is in any way unreasonable. I note that the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, NFU Scotland and NSA Scotland, do not oppose the amendment itself. Edwin Moulton raised who would be effectively the judge that would be dealt with in the same way than the bill suggests that the phrase reasonably believe would be dealt with. It would effectively be up to the courts and others to decide whether or not the evidence was sufficient to prove the exception. In the same way, you would have to prove that the landowner reasonably believed that the exception applied. I think that my amendment is easier to prove than simply relying on the phrase reasonably believed. I would urge members to support amendment 110. I would like to ask Colin Smyth what he means by evidence of state of mind. That is what you have to do at present to interpret whether or not an individual reasonably believed. You effectively have to rely on that individual simply saying the reason you believed the exception applied. What my amendment does is it says that instead of simply relying on the individual, you have to rely on evidence, which I think is clearer to prove one way or the other. Edwin Moulton. I find that interesting. Providing you right an email saying that you think Fox control is necessary, that justifies the amendment and justifies the position. That email could just then become a paper copy that is a part of the process rather than actually being a reasonable justification that has been argued at the time. It just becomes a prerequisite if you send an email. Is that what you are suggesting? You would have to prove that the exception existed if the email was from those carrying up the hunt that had information about their belief. For example, I gave a high level of predation of lambs. That would certainly be an argument to be considered and whether the exception continued. If the email simply said that we were on your land hunting, then obviously by definition that would not prove the evidence would have to relate to the specific exception that you are arguing is the case. Likewise, the individual would presumably have to do that under the current bill. The only difference is that what I am suggesting is that there should be some evidence to back up that particular claim. It might be helpful to remind members that, given that we have now had the three members with amendments speaking, that is the point where members are free to speak before I invite the minister to speak to the amendments in the group. I would like to speak to Liam Kerr's amendment. I understand that the thinking behind this amendment is to avoid criminalising those who were genuinely just walking their dog and lost control of it, but, as drafted, it would make conviction of genuine offenses even more difficult. The SSPCA says that this amendment would create an obvious loophole as every poacher who could claim that it was not the intention of the dog. The end of section 1 already makes clear that what is required regarding control of a dog. Rather than creating clarity, this would give offenders yet another excuse that they can hide behind. Even the Law Society acknowledged that this can be used as a loophole, and that was oral evidence given in June 2022. Police Scotland explained in written evidence that hair courses will often claim that they just let their dog off for exercise or to do the toilet, and it chased a hair of its own free will. We cannot afford to open another loophole, or soon the bill will be more loopholes than legislation, and that is what the bill is attempting to do, is to close down loopholes from 2022. I urge members to vote against this amendment. In regard to Edward Mountain's amendment 58 to 62, 63 to 68, remove protection for rabbits, weasel, stoats, minks, pole cats and ferrets, the amendments would make it permissible to hunt those creatures with dogs. During stage 1 evidence, we heard from Chief Superintendent Flynn that the suffering of an animal that is attacked by a dog will always be the same. They are sentient beings, so they will suffer. All animals deserve our respect and humane control methods, and I cannot support those amendments. On rabbits specifically covered by amendment 58 to 62, this is a matter that we have considered at length in the committee. I am satisfied with the evidence. We have heard that rabbits should be defined as a wild mammal in the legislation to prevent the creation of a loophole for hair coursing and for the reasons of welfare, I have just outlined. The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission gave evidence on the distress suffered by hunted rabbits. I understand the concerns that have been raised about the impact on rough shooting, where multiple dogs are used to flush quarry species. We have taken additional evidence on the bill's impact on this activity. I note that both Police Scotland and the League Against Cruel Sports raised the risk that including an exception for rabbits in the bill could create a smoke screen for illegal hunts with packs of dogs under the guise of rough shooting. I am not going to take an intervention. The imperative is to ensure that the legislation, when passed, does not allow exceptions to become loopholes undermining our intention to uphold animal welfare standards for the reasons I will not be supporting amendments 58 to 62. I will be supporting amendment 110 in the name of Colin Smith, and I urge others on the committee to do the same, because I think that it would clarify the legislation. I will not be supporting amendment 131 in the name of Liam Kerr, because it undermines the clarity of the offence. I cannot support amendments in the name of Edward Mountain. Amendments 58 to 62 seek to create an exception for rabbits. Amendment 63, I am concerned, would create a loophole for those who claim that they were not intentionally searching for animals. Amendments 64 to 68 seek to exclude weasel stoats, minks, pole cats and ferrets from the definition of wild mammals and, thus, from the scope of the bill, which I fear would leave them without any protection from being chased and killed by dogs. I understand your concerns. I do not necessarily agree with them. My concern is that we have a Government on one side who is trying to control invasive species in the form of mink, and they are encouraging people to control mink, and they are funding people to encourage the control of mink. Similarly, weasels and stoats, where they have got into habitats where they are not welcome and not used to it, are being funded by the Government to control. In one breath, you are saying that we do not think that they should control them, and in the same breath, the Government is saying that we need to control them and that we are financing people to do it. Can I ask the member how you balance that, please? Thank the member for the intervention. I think that it is important that we are clear that there is a difference between controlling wildlife and the issue within this bill, which is about hunting with dogs. What I am objecting to is that those animals are being chased and killed by dogs. There are other ways to control animals, and that is the point that I would draw the member's attention to. No further remarks on the group. I would like to pick up on the point about mink. The mink project in Scotland does not use dogs, and the mink population should be controlled under the environmental benefit exception anyway, so I think that it is clear that the mink projects in Scotland are not using dogs. Just on that point, removing rabbits from the definition of wild mammals, does the member think that doing that has a benefit to the environment? I was talking about mink in that point. Yes, but I am trying to debate the points that you made earlier by using that as a link. Mink as the link. As I said in my statement before, rabbits are sentient beings and I think that they should be protected. We have taken a great deal of evidence on that during our committee hearings. I know that you will not take another intervention, but I did want to ask you if you thought that a rat is a sentient being. Thank you, convener, and good morning, everyone. I will begin with comments as regards amendment 131 in the name of Liam Kerr. I suppose that I would like to reassure Liam Kerr that a key concept of the bill is that hunting is an intentional act. A person cannot be accidentally or unintentionally hunting just like a person cannot accidentally or unintentionally run. It is important, Lord Bonham, to describe at length the complications that arose from the mental state provisions in the 2002 act, which I think that Liam Kerr referred to, and the difficulty that arose in trying to prove a person's intent difficulty in particular as regards enforcement of the legislation. I cannot support that amendment for two principal reasons. First of all, it is unnecessary because intention is already implied within the act of hunting. Equally, that creates uncertainty as to when intent would be assessed. For example, if a person allows their dogs to chase a wild mammal and, instead of recalling the dog, encourages the dog to pursue and kill it, the person could argue that they did not know that was their intended use of the dog when they set off, but at some point that would have changed and we can see that there is dubiety there, which could lead to the enforcement problems that Lord Bonham talked about. Ultimately, I think that amendment would weaken the principal offence, would take us back to the problems of enforcement associated with the 2002 act, and for those reasons I would ask the member not to press amendment 131. Moving to amendments 58 to 62 in the name of Edward Mountain, as has been rehearsed in certain new exception into the bill that would allow the chasing and killing of rabbits using a pack of dogs if the person had permission from the landowner. They do that by creating a new exception, which in effect removes rabbits from the scope of the bill. The proposed new exception is not subject to the same conditions in other exceptions, including, importantly, the two dog limits. As we have said, the only requirement would be landowner permission. It would not then be an offence to hunt rabbits, including the chasing and killing of rabbits with a pack of dogs. I have spoken at length about why rabbits were purposefully added to the definition of wild mammal in the bill for the reasons of animal welfare. Edward Mountain talked about rabbits do not suffer any more than other animals, but that is slightly beside the point. The point is that they suffer in the same way as other animals and that we ought to give them parity, for example with hares. Of course, the other reason that we chose to include rabbits was to close the loophole whereby persons engaging in hair-coursing were claiming that they were hunting rabbits. You will absolutely know that, as I explained earlier, rabbits and hares hide in different locations. So, when you flush a rabbit, its first position is to go down a burrow, which is usually close within 20 metres, often of where it is feeding. Whereas hares are in open ground, it is not subsequently coursing. The rabbit will probably just go straight underground. The problem is that a person may have committed offence just by flushing the rabbit using three dogs, which is not the intent, because most people will want to call their dogs off before they chase a rabbit because that is just bad practice anyway. So, do you accept that, on that basis, rabbits should not be included? No, I do not accept that, convener, although I am grateful to Edward Mountain for his explanation. I think that his description of the rabbit's behaviour is probably right enough, but I do not think that that removes or takes away from the fact those two key reasons why we have included rabbits within the Bill parity in the case of animal welfare and the reality that people are using the guise of hunting rabbits as a guise for hair coursing, and we need to try and stop that. That is why we have included it within the Bill. The final point that I would make on those amendments is that we have also spoken at length about why the consistency of the conditions within the Bill is important and, importantly, the two-dog limit. I think that those exceptions would undermine the aims and objectives of the Bill, as ultimately packs of dogs would be able to kill and chase rabbits, so I cannot support them. Nor can I support amendment 63, which would change the section 1 definition of hunting and conflate the activities of searching and coursing into a single activity. The effect of that would be that any searching for a wild mammal without coursing would not constitute hunting, and that could potentially remove a large amount of activity from the scope of the Bill. It might mean, in essence, that unless a person was caught in the act of flushing or chasing a wild mammal, a person could go out with a pack of dogs and claim that they were simply searching for wild mammals with no intention to flush or chase them. There is legal precedent for the position of the Government in the first Scottish prosecution of the main offence under the 2002 act in Fraser against Adams. The sheriff accepted that, as part of the meaning of to hunt, it was not necessary that any animal would be located or killed for hunting to have taken place. The definition of hunting in the Bill is non-exhaustive, but that amendment could mean that searching for an unidentified wild mammal did not constitute hunting, and I think that that would undermine what we were seeking to achieve with the Bill and create a significant loophole. Amendments 64 to 68, in the name of Edward Mountain. Again, those are about removing weasel, stoats, mink, pole cats and ferrets from the definition of wild mammal, allowing a person to hunt them, including chasing and killing them using a pack of dogs. I would ask the committee to note that those species are all included within the definition of wild mammal in the 2002 act, so that means that it is currently illegal to chase and kill them. Edward Mountain's amendments, I think, therefore would take us backwards and not forwards, as I am hoping to move. Pole cats are also one of Scotland's rarest mammals that are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and can only be controlled under licence from NatureScot, so I cannot see rationale for excluding them, and I think that it would have negative welfare implications to do so. Finally, I turn to amendment 110, in the name of Colin Smyth, seeking evidence that supports the position on the defences. That would be opposed to the bill as it is currently drafted, which requires the person to show that they reasonably believe that any of the exceptions applied. Listen carefully to Colin Smyth's view, and I do not disagree with him. However, my view and the Government's view is that this amendment is not necessary, because in the context of a defence, the current requirement as it is to show something, that would always require presenting some kind of evidence, which would be determined as part of the legal proceedings. The formulation of the statutory defence in the bill is consistent with the approach taken to other statutory defences in pieces of legislation, including the Fireworks and Pirate Technics Articles Scotland Act 2022 and the Hate Crime and Public Order Scotland Act 2021. I understand Colin Smyth's position, and I can reassure him that what is on the face of the bill would already require evidence to be shown, so I would therefore ask him not to press the amendment. Thank you. Eiliam Kerr, to wind up. Thank you, convener. I welcome the remarks in the generality, but also specifically, I think that after listening to what were for me very thought-provoking contributions from colleagues and the minister, I am certainly content not to push my amendment with the intention of looking to revise it, perhaps in partnership with the stakeholders that Rachel Hamilton mentioned, and indeed members going forward, such that the amendment might be tightened up and provide the clarity that it originally intended, noting in particular however the minister's comments on necessity, which I found interesting and which I shall reflect on. Clearly, convener, any amendment which seeks to give the public a clear message about conduct that is or is not permitted must itself be completely watertight and not open the loopholes that Ariana Burgess and others talked of. From the feedback that I have heard today, I am not persuaded that my amendment is yet at that stage. Accordingly, convener, I will not press amendment 131, but I do hope to work with colleagues and perhaps the minister to bring back a revise amendment at stage 3 to provide the clarity without creating the loopholes. I confirm that you wish to withdraw. The member has indicated that he wishes to withdraw the amendment. Does any member object? No member has objected, so the amendment is withdrawn. I call amendment 1 in the name of Ariana Burgess's group, with amendments as shown in the groupings. Ariana Burgess, to move amendment 1 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I move amendment 1. I would like to speak first to my amendment 13. Amendment 13 removes section 5, the exception to use one dog for the management of foxes and mink below ground. I would like to thank Colin Smith for supporting this amendment. Our committee received evidence from the SSPCA on the consequences of sending dogs underground to flush foxes, pictures showing dogs and foxes with horrific injuries and disfigured faces, and written evidence about wild animals screaming in terror and pain as they were torn apart by dogs. How is this compatible with the bill's pursuit of the highest standards of animal welfare? Dog fighting is legal in Scotland. It should therefore be illegal to send a dog underground where there is suspected to be a fox. My amendments 1, 3, 5 and 7 are consequential from amendment 13. They simply remove all reference to section 5 from sections 1 and 2. Coming to other amendments in this group, Jenny Minthowe's amendment removes mink from this exception, meaning that it would be an offence to use a dog below ground to search for or flush mink. I will support Jenny Minthowe's amendments 1, 6, 3, 4, 6, 5, 6, 1, 6, 6, 7, but I urge the committee to vote for my amendment 13, which would remove the need for these amendments. Colin Smith's amendment 117 stipulates that a fox or mink that is brought or chased up from below ground by the dog must be shot immediately rather than killed in another way, and I will also support that amendment. I will not support Edward Mountain's amendment 73-76, 81-84, 85-88, 89-92, 93-96 or Rachel Hamilton's amendments in this group, 212, 214, 213, 221, 222 and 225. Edward Mountain's amendments in this group add four other wild animals to the list of animals that can be legally hunted by sending a dog below ground. Rachel Hamilton's amendment 2020 specifies that a wild mammal that is being searched for or flushed must be flushed as soon as reasonably possible after it is located, but that could be used as a justification for using more than two dogs to flush the animal more quickly. Rachel Hamilton's amendment 224 includes requiring reasonable steps to be taken to prevent injury to the dog used underground, as well as some other specifications. I am concerned that that could be used as an excuse to send two dogs underground so that they can flush the fox and get out more quickly. Accordingly, I move amendments 1, 3, 5, 7 and 13, and I urge the committee to support them. I also ask the committee to support Jenny Mintoes and Collin Smith's amendments, but to vote against the other amendments in this group. Thank you very much, convener. I believe that I have made the case for including weasel stouts, pole cats and ferrets. I understand what the minister has said about pole cats, but there are domesticated pole cats that have gone fferal, which is why they are included in there. I believe that we should have the ability to flush them from below ground and search for them below ground. Those people that will know weasels often use mole burrows, for example, to hide and using a terrier to move along a mole burrow to flush the weasel is an effective way of controlling it. Stouts will do the same in small holes, which may benefit from using a dog to flush them. As far as the arguments on mink are concerned, I believe that mink is important to keep mink in the section because mink is a predatory species that causes untold damage to the native flora within Scotland. We have seen them damaging important species that need to be protected. Therefore, I think that mink should be included. As far as the other amendments in the group, I would just like to say that I believe that I understand Ariane Burgess' position on using dogs to flush animals from underground. I do not actually believe that that is the case. There are times when it is really important. For example, you have stone cans where dogs are the only way of getting foxes out from those cans, which are then subsequently shot. As far as Jenny Minto's comments are concerned, I do believe that mink, as I have stated, is really important to get rid of mink. You will not want mink on islands such as Orkney or even the islands in Shetland that you represent, because they absolutely decimate ground-mesting birds and, therefore, can train them in any means possible, I believe, should be encouraged. I accept Ariane Burgess' point that the mink officers actually were not encouraging the use of dogs underground, but they were providing traps, they were providing rafts, they were encouraging owners. I will declare an interest that I have had a mink officer visit the bit of river that I am responsible for and encourage me to kill mink in every legal form possible. I probably should have said at the beginning that I am a farmer, I have declared that to this committee before. If there is any interest that relates to farming and field sports, I should have declared them at the outset. I hope that the committee will forgive that oversight and accept my declaration at this stage. The other point that I should make is that I am not entirely convinced what Colin Smyth's amendment 117 is trying to achieve. I believe that any wild mammal that does come to the surface will immediately be killed by shooting where that is possible and safe to do. Finally, I would support, if I was allowed to vote, Rachel Hamilton's amendment 225 in relation to this. In summary, I would like to leave all my amendments here because I think that they are important to the control and the management of the environment. I do not support Jenny Minto's amendment, I do not understand Colin Smyth's amendment and, sadly, I think that Ariane Burgess' amendments are wrecking amendments to the bill and are removing an important and legal form of control for predators in the countryside. Jenny Minto speaks to amendment 162 and other amendments in the group. It is clear that the use of dogs underground continues to be a contentious issue. As we can see from the wide range of amendments lodged, there is quite a split between members on the best approach to taking this bill. On the one hand, we have a set of amendments that, if passed, will either place further restrictions on the use of dogs underground or ban the practice completely. On the other, we have several sets of amendments that would widen the scope of section 5 by allowing more than one dog to be deployed underground for a broader range of purposes and to control a greater number of species than the bill currently permits. I have listened to all the evidence that has been presented to the committee up to this point and I have carefully considered all of the amendments put forward by my fellow MSPs. Because of the clear welfare issues that can arise using dogs underground, I believe that the exception in section 5 of the bill should be drafted as narrowly as possible. The bill currently allows for dogs to be used underground to control mink and foxes. I know that a complete ban on the use of dogs underground to control these species is supported by some members of the committee. However, I have concerns that such a ban would seriously curtail the ability of land managers to undertake effective fox control in certain circumstances. Mink, as we have heard, are classed as an invasive species because of the danger that they pose to native Scottish birds and mammals and I agree that it is necessary to control their numbers, including eradicating them from certain areas. However, during the course of the bill, I have become aware that the majority of mink control in Scotland does not involve the use of dogs underground. For example, the Scottish invasive species initiative does not deploy dogs underground for their mink control project. Instead, they successfully use a combination of surveying to confirm a mink population followed by the setting of live capture traps. I think that in the three years when it started, it captured 371 mink from 172 sites. Then, as Edward Mountain has highlighted, in the Uists, he was perhaps suggesting more the wider the Outer Hebrides, the Hebridean mink project seeks to eradicate mink from those islands and monitors north and south Uist for mink activity. The project also uses traps instead of sending dogs underground to flush mink. As I understand it, just looking at the way of capturing mink as opposed to using traps, not using dogs, in 2016, after the project started in 2001, there was only seven minks caught on Lewis and Harris and there has been no juveniles caught since 2015, but they are continuing monitoring down in the Uists. It is therefore clear to me that there are established and proven ways of managing mink, which do not give rise to some of the same welfare concerns as the use of dogs below ground does. For those reasons, I believe that section 5 should be amended so that it is no longer permitted to send dogs underground to flush mink, and I hope that members agree and support my amendment. Rachael Hamilton to speak to amendment 212 and other amendments in the group. As a general overview of my amendments in this group, the use of a dog below ground in section 5 is limited to fox and mink. That reflects existing provision in the 2002 act for the use of a dog below ground. However, that fails to recognise that rabbits are excluded from the scope of the 2002 legislation but are currently included in this bill. If rabbits were to remain within the scope of the bill, it needs to be recognised in section 5. There is no logical reason to allow a dog below ground to flush a mink or fox but not a rabbit. The other exceptions in the bill refer to wild mammal and the term should also be used in section 5. It will also be beneficial to avoid the anomaly of being able to use a ferret below ground to flush a rabbit but not a dog. It would also future proof that legislation should ever be necessary to control any other ground, dwelling mammal or other non-native species. Amendments 2 and 2, 2 and 3, 2 and 4, 2 and 5, 2 and 6, 2 to 1, 2 to 2, 2 to 5 would retain some of the wording of the existing legislation. The 2002 act was substantially amended throughout its parliamentary stages to reflect the evidence and the reality of wildlife management on the ground. MSPs listen to the evidence from those who undertake control on the ground. As such, the legislation recognised that there are enclosed or secure places that may not be below ground level in a technical sense but where dogs may need to be deployed in the same way as where the wild mammal is below ground. Foxes will frequently reside or seek refuge in places that it could be argued are above ground such as rock faces, cairns or rock piles. The amendment would provide additional clarity and ensure that terriers could be deployed where necessary and appropriate. Lord Bolymy was quite clear about the importance of terrier work as was the Rural Development Committee 2001 report. Amendment 2, 1, 7 and 26, the purpose of being able to use a dog below ground is to enable fox control and effective wildlife management. There is no reason why the use of a dog in these circumstances should be limited to protecting livestock but not environmental purposes, such as protecting other wildlife such as vulnerable ground nesting birds like curlew or cappicali. If the activity is acceptable for the one purpose, it should be valid for all purposes identified within the bill. That is the case in the 2002 act and there is no logical reason to change those. Amendment 2, 1, 7 and 26 aim to retain this part of the 2002 act. It is worth also recalling Lord Bolymy and Lord Burn's conclusions on the importance of terrier work. Lord Bolymy noted that the material presented to the review is persuasive of the need for the use of terriers to ensure the dispatch of a fox gone to ground. There is no scientific evidence of the extent of the impact on the fox. Indeed, it was observed in the Burn's report that the banning of hunting could have had an adverse effect on the welfare of foxes in upland areas unless dogs could be used at least to flush foxes from cover. The same would apply in the case of young cubs orphaned below ground in a den. Amendment 2, 1, 8 and 27, the evidence provided to the committee was clear that, although ordinarily only one dog should be used below ground at any one time, there are circumstances in which a born and one dog is needed to flush a fox effectively and also for very good welfare reasons. It is for this reason that the national working terrier federation code is worded as such and why Lord Bolymy's recommendation is worded accordingly, which was the wording on which the Scottish Government consulted ahead of the bill's instruction. The Scottish Government in its consultation on Lord Bolymy's recommendation asked, that the legislation should impose a restriction in line with the code of conduct of the national working terrier federation that, wherever possible and practical, only one terrier should be entered at ground at time. Lord Bolymy's recommendation was subject to the caveat that any restriction to one dog applied wherever possible and practical. In contrast, the bill creates an absolute restriction to one dog going beyond Lord Bolymy's recommendation. The NWTF code of conduct at rules 3 C states is recommended, wherever possible and practical, that only one terrier is entered at ground at a time. Note that typical exceptions would be, for example, if working large cairns, rock piles and similar structures with multiple entrances and exits and no clearly defined tunnel structures or in the event of a locating equipment failure or in order to facilitate a rescue. The intention of the 2000 act, just like the NWTF code, is to ensure that the quarry is flushed as quickly and as safely as possible below ground in order that it may be shot and also to ensure that the terrier spends the absolute minimum amount of time below ground. That is why 3 C is written the way it is. This is about the welfare of both the dog and the fox or the mink. In certain circumstances and in different types of earth, as described in 3 C, the most effective, safe and humane practice may be to enter more than one terrier. The same applies to large areas of windblown forestry, which are quite common in Scotland. Entering a single terrier into some of these places is rather like entering a single dog or just two dogs into a large area of forestry. The fox can easily evade a single dog. It does not feel pressured and, instead, skulks about in there all day long. The change being proposed to the current bill would undermine the effectiveness of the use of terriers in some situations and represent a problem in terms of animal welfare. It is worth recalling that Lord Bonomy was clearly supportive of terrier work and the important role that it plays in pest control. If you can bear with me, convener, amendments 2.9 to 28 and 2.20. The revised and shortened definition of under control would effectively prevent the use of dogs below ground. It requires that the person who is responsible for the dog must be able to direct the dog's activity by physical contact or verbal or audible command, which has no relevance to the activity taking place. Not only is it contrary to best practice, but if it is followed to the letter of law, it would have also negative welfare implications. The most basic requirement when using dogs below ground is to ensure that silence is maintained at all times. The quarry must feel that it is more secure in leaving its earth rather than stay where it is to be chided by a terrier dog. To engage in any form of verbal or audible command would only serve to destroy that illusion. It would discourage the quarry from leaving and create an underground stand-off situation. As a dog is below ground, physical contact is not possible either. The issue could easily be resolved either by reverting back to the definition used in the 2002 act, which includes the alternative, that the dog is carrying out a series of actions appropriate to the activity undertaken, having been trained to do so. Alternatively, the National Working Terrier Federation code, rule 11, that requires the use of electronic locating equipment whenever a dog is below ground could be added as a condition. This equipment enables the handler to track the dog's movements and location with pinpoint accuracy throughout the entire process. Today, no responsible terrier owner would even consider permitting their dog to go below ground unless it was wearing a locator collar. Fy3b, which states that the dog used in the activity is under control, should be deleted if the definition of under control is not amended and replaced if the dog used is fitted with suitable electronic locating equipment. In my view, that is far more desirable option and one that has very significant additional welfare and practical benefits. Even if the definition of under control is amended, there would be merit in adding the locator equipment as one of the conditions for use of the dog below. Finally, convener, thank you for bearing with me. Amendment 224. The bill is drafted as omitted provisions from the 2002 act that were included for the welfare of both quarry and the dog being deployed, however, there is an opportunity to put in further measures to safeguard welfare by requiring the use of locating equipment and making clear that unless netting, nothing should be done to prevent the animal from leaving the place below ground. Amendment 224 would protect welfare and ensure best practice. The requirement for locator equipment should replace the requirement for a dog below ground to be under control. As the definition of under control is not workable in the context of dogs used below ground, the 2002 act recognised that in its definition of under control. If the definition is properly amended, then the requirement for locator equipment could still be incorporated into the bill. Thank you. Colin Smyth, to speak to amendment 117 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. My standard point in this group is that I do not support the use of dogs below ground to control wild animals. The bill seeks to limit the number of dogs to one with unrealistic idea that this dog will be controlled, but if it is cruel to use two dogs underground, it is clearly cruel to use any dogs. Therefore, I am not surprised that in the stage 1 report that the committee has stated, it is not clear that the use of dogs at all below ground is compatible with the bill's pursuit of the highest possible animal welfare. In my view, it is not compatible. I hope that amendment 13 in Arianna Burgess' name, which I have supported, to remove this exception is successful, along with the consequential amendments 1, 3, 5 and 7. However, amendment 117 in my name, which would only be relevant if this exception is not removed, seeks to deal with the fact that the exception in the bill for the use of dogs underground applies to a person using a dog below ground to search for or flush a wild animal with, and I quote the intention of killing it, but it does not specify how they should intend to kill the mammal. My amendment specifies that the intention should be to dispatch the animal by shooting. The amendment seeks to explicitly require that there is no intention for the dog to kill the wild mammal. Although by specifying that the intention is to dispatch the wild mammal while shooting, it ensures that a more humane method of killing is used than being killed by a dog should the wild mammal emerge from underground. It also avoids a possible cover story should a wild mammal be flushed from underground and then a dog be used to kill the wild mammal. Edward Mountain says that he believes that the wild mammal will be shot. What my amendment seeks to state is that it should be shot and this should be contained within the bill. The amendment therefore not only seeks to avoid the deliberate killing of wild mammals by dogs but avoids another unnecessary loophole being created. I therefore urge members to support amendment 117. I understand now the intention of the amendment that you are suggesting at 117. It could be that it could be made more understandable by on being flushed immediately killed by shooting. That may be a better way of achieving what you want to want to do. So it would clear that you weren't flushing it to course it and you weren't flushing it to cause any pain but your immediate intention was to shoot it. I think to say that if it comes out that in all circumstances you can shoot it that might not be possible in the sense that it may go in the direction of a house or a farm studying which would make shooting dangerous in the tension a group of people walking in the countryside or whatever, there are dangers. I think that I would feel more comfortable and I wonder if the member would consider putting with the intention of immediately shooting it would make the amendment better. I believe that my amendment is already very clear. I would find it quite disturbing if we are arguing that somebody would carry out shooting in any circumstances in a way that is in any way dangerous to anyone. I am happy to listen to the debate if people believe that my wording is not clear, I personally believe that it is. I think that it is important to note that it is an addition to section 51 where it does argue that it is in the case of where a fox or a weng is flushed from below ground. That is the context of the use of immediately shooting should that animal emerge. I am happy to listen to the debate, but I think that the key point in my amendment is that if you look at the wording of the bill at the moment it simply says that with the intention of killing it for one or more of the purposes set out in subsection 2 it does not specify how that animal should be killed. My concern is that the dogs could be used in these circumstances and that obviously goes against the whole purpose of the bill. Thank you, convener. I thank the members who have lodged amendments in this grouping. I will be supporting amendments 1, 3, 5, 7 and 13 in the name of Ariane Burgess as they remove the exception for management of foxes and mink, below ground and activity, which I am not assured can meet high animal welfare standards for either dogs or wild mammals. As has already been stated the committee stage 1 report said that it is not clear to the committee that the use of dogs at all below ground is compatible with the bill's pursuit of the highest possible animal welfare standards. I will also be supporting amendments 1, 6, 2 to 1, 6, 7 in the name of Jenny Minto, which remove mink from the exception for the use of dogs below ground so that if the exception remains, the species will at least be protected from the activity. I will also be supporting amendment 1, 7 in the name of Colin Smyth because it tightens the legislation by specifying that the intention should be to kill the animal by shooting, ensuring that less humane methods are not used. I cannot support amendments 73 to 96 in the name of Edward Mountain as they add weasels, stoats, pole cats and ferrets to the exception, thereby widening the scope of the exception where I would wish to see it removed altogether. Similarly, I cannot support amendments 212 to 219, 221, 222, 225, 26, 27 and 28 in the name of Rachel Hamilton as they widen the scope of the exception in one form or another. I listened with interest to Rachel Hamilton's explanation of her amendments 220 and 224. I am not currently minded to support those amendments because, like Ariane Burgess, I have concerns that they could be used as an excuse to justify the use of more than two dogs, but I would be interested to hear the comments from the minister in regard to those amendments in due course. Does any other member wish to speak before inviting the minister to speak to the amendments in this group? Just briefly, the important point that I know was raised by Mr Mountain about the importance of eradicating mink in many parts of Scotland that he recited, the Hebrides is merely to confirm what Jenny Minto has said, which is that I visited these projects and they do not use dogs, they use, as has been pointed out, satellite positioned live traps. Sorry, mink is not just an important problem on islands where there are definitely invasive species, there are problems on the mainland where there are invasive species as well and, consequently, a lot of the riverine courses on the mainland have trees and roots underneath them which the mink hide and if you are trying to track a mink down and remove it, it often helps to have a terrier working through the roots, which technically, by definition, could be taken as underground and you are legitimately trying to carry out a policy that I believe that the Government is trying to support, so whilst dogs might not necessarily be important on that, on the islands it is important on the mainland. The deputy convener may be able to help me on this, but I think that when it was at Stoats always, I always get the two confused, were on Orkney, they originally used terriers to track them down and sent tracking dogs to find out exactly which holes they were hiding in so that they got the right holes as far as trapping was subsequently concerned. I think that I have got it right, Stoats, but I am sure that the deputy convener will correct me if I have got it wrong. Beatrice Wishart. I am not sure that I can correct you, but I think that you know more about that than I do. Just very briefly, to respond to Mr Mountain's comments, the Scottish Invasive Species Initiative is a mainland initiative and it stretches from Darnis in the north to the Firth of Tey. As I highlighted earlier, they do not use dogs, they use mink rafts to with cleave pieces to get the pawprints and then they use live capture mink traps. Will you take just a supplementary bit on that? I accept the point that you are making, but the point is that these mink rafts are deployed with traps on them and traps are given to landowners to trap the mink on the riverbank, not just on the raft. They are physically encouraging us, certainly within the Cairngorms national park, which I have a lot of knowledge of, they are encouraging us to kill mink in any way that is legally possible to do so. It is really important that we do that if we are going to protect the species in the Cairngorms so that we need to protect some of which are waning through to bad management. Thank you. I invite the minister to speak to the amendments in the group. Thank you, convener, and, like Rachael Hamilton, I will now have to ask you to bear with me as I go through them. I will begin with amendments 1, 3, 5, 7 and 13 in the name of Arianne Burgess, which seek to remove section 5 entirely from the bill. I say that in developing the bill, I have sought to balance the highest possible animal welfare considerations against the need for effective wildlife management, accepting that the latter is necessary in our rural nation. However, I know that the use of dogs underground is a very polarising issue and Arianne Burgess spoke very clearly to some of the welfare concerns that are alive here. I understand why she brought the amendment, because I too have heard the evidence about the use of dogs underground and how that can pose a risk to both the welfare of the wild mammal and the dog. I would say that that is why the bill places a strict limit on the purposes for which dogs can be sent underground and the species of mammals that they can be used to search for and flush. However, ultimately, in the work that I and my official colleagues have been undertaking in developing the bill, it has not been clear that there is a viable alternative when it comes particularly to fox control. There are no more humane methods that have been put to me that would fulfil the same function. It has been put to me that there are some less humane methods that might be used, including blocking up a den resulting in starvation, which is something that I think that everybody would want to avoid. Therefore, after giving this matter a great deal of thought and weighing up all the evidence that has been put before me, I am unfortunately unable to support those amendments. Amendment 73 to 96, in the name of Edward Mountain, we have discussed this as weasels stole its pollcast and ferris to a list of wild mammals that could be searched for or flushed using a dog underground. I have seen no evidence put forward that it is necessary to allow the use of dogs underground to control those mammals. I rehearsed earlier how poll cats are one of the Scotland's rarest mammals and a priority species under the UK biodiversity plan. The welfare concerns inherent in the use of dogs underground mean that we must ensure, as I have just said in response to amendments by Ariane Burgess, we must ensure that those provisions are drawn as narrowly as possible. Of course, as Jenny Minto described, we have seen projects on Orkney and throughout the country that have used other effective methods such as trapping, so that the species can continue to be controlled but in the best way possible. Therefore, I will not be supporting those amendments. Amendments 162 to 167, in the name of Jenny Minto, I will listen very carefully to the arguments put forward today. For all the reasons outlined by Ms Minto, I will be supporting section 5 or I do support section 5. I think that we have seen plenty evidence that other effective methods of mint control are available and that provision is in line with my desire to see the provision for dogs underground being drawn as narrowly as possible. Amendments 212, 214, 216, 221, 222 and 225, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, those amendments allow the use of dogs below ground to search for any species of wild animal by removing fox and mink on the face of the bell and replacing it with any animal. I have already said in my response to Edward Mountain's amendments that have not seen any evidence to justify the use of dogs underground to control other species of mammals. In fact, everything that I have heard about the welfare concerns about sending dogs underground leads me to the conclusion, as I have said, that we must draw these as narrowly as we can. Moving to amendments 213 and 215 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, those seek to amend section 5 exception with regards to sections stating from and enclosed space within rocks or secure cover above ground. I think that that would widen the reach of section 5 to include searching for and flushing wild mammals above ground as well as below ground. I think that Rachel Hamilton alluded to the wording in those amendments being taken from section 23 of the 2002 act. She was right to quote Lord Bonomy on terriers, but I also asked Rachel Hamilton to note his comments on this point, where he said that consideration should be given to framing section 23 more narrowly by removing reference to using a dog under control to flush a fox from an enclosed space within rocks or other secure cover above ground. I think that the amendments put forward by Rachel Hamilton could reverse the action that we have taken to implement Lord Bonomy's recommendations of separating the use of dog below ground into a separate section. I think that it could create a confusing and unnecessary overlap between those exceptions and I therefore can't support them. On amendment 117 in the name of Colin Smith, again, this would require a person using section 5 to intend to kill the wild animal immediately by shooting. While this amendment may not appear problematic and I have some sympathy with what Colin Smith is seeking to achieve, it does create two anomalies that I have to share with the committee. The first is that the requirement to shoot immediately is at odds with the consistent use of the language of as soon as reasonably possible throughout the bill. Of course, one of the main themes of Bonomy's review was the need for consistent language. The second anomaly is that in practice there is always the chance in practice that a person while searching for a wild mammal underground does not actually emerge. While the person may have intended to shoot it, the person's intention cannot determine what actually happens in practice and there could be differences there. However, I understand Colin Smith's concern and would reassure him with reference to section 5 3D that, if the fox is found or emerges from below ground, it must be shot or killed by a bird of prey as soon as reasonably possible. I think that that does achieve a lot of what his concerns are pointed to. Of course, all of that is before we consider the very practical need to make sure that any dogs or, indeed, people, as Edward Mountain suggested, are out of the line of fire before immediately shooting. For those reasons, I cannot support this amendment. Moving swiftly on to amendments 26 and 217, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, due to welfare concerns, section 5, facilitating limited control underground, has deliberately been drawn as narrowly as possible. I have heard evidence that it is sometimes necessary to deploy dogs underground in the course of controlling foxes and to protect livestock, but I have not heard any evidence whatsoever on allowing the use of dogs underground for environmental benefit. The current legislation does not allow dogs to be used underground for all the purposes set out in section 7, which, of course, is the environmental benefit section. Those amendments would go further than the law as it stands, and I cannot support them for that reason. Amendment 218 and 227, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, amendments to section 5, seeking to allow the use of more than one dog underground. I do not think that any strong evidence was brought forward at stage 1 to support amending the bill to enable the use of more than one dog underground. Restricting the number of dogs that can be used to one is in line with recommendations made by Lord Bonomy. It also reflects best practice, as set out in the Court of Practice by the National Working Terrier Federation, which already suggests one. Moreover, animal welfare groups have said that if dogs are to continue to be used underground, then a one dog limit should apply. I would also draw the committee's attention to the fact that the Hunting Act 2004, which governs the use of dogs underground in England and Wales, also limits the upper number of dogs that can be used underground, albeit for different purposes in England and Wales to one. For those reasons, I do not support this amendment. Amendment 2219, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, seeks to remove the section 5 requirement that a dog used underground must be under control. Ensuring that dogs that are being used to control wild mammals are kept under control is a key tenent of the bill, and it is embedded into all the exceptions that set out when and how dogs can be used. I cannot see any justification for waiving the fundamental requirement for dogs that are used underground. In fact, due to everything that we have discussed in the welfare considerations, it is vital for both the wild mammal and the dog that it can be controlled when underground. For those reasons, I cannot support that amendment either. Amendment 29, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, seeks to include or dogs, as the case may be, after the word dog in section 5.3b. I do not support the use of more than one dog underground, convener. However, if I did, the amendment would still be unnecessary due to the application of section of legislative reform Scotland Act 2010, which provides that words in the singular in this bill will include the plural unless the context requires otherwise. Amendment 220, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, adds the condition to section 5 that the wild mammal being searched for must be flushed as soon as reasonably possible after it is found. I understand that this wording is imported from the 2002 act, which I am always cautious of, because when drafting the bill, I intentionally did not include that in the exception because of the unpredictability of knowing what will happen when using a dog underground. I think that is inherent in the practice. During stakeholder engagement, those who work with terriers underground cited examples where the terrier and fox would stand off, which results often in the fox not being flushed at all and both animals ending up being dug out. I am sure that this amendment is not what was intended, but it would make that situation which is obviously important for the welfare of both animals illegal by only allowing a fox to be flushed if it is found, not dug out or left underground without harm. Therefore, I cannot support that amendment for those reasons. Finally, amendment 224, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, of amendment section 5, 3, to add a list of further conditions that must be met when using dogs underground. The issue of the welfare of a dog underground is clearly very important. In terms of legislation, the welfare of dogs underground is already covered by the animal health and welfare Scotland act 2006, which came into force after the 2002 act that we are now amending. Section 19 of the 2006 act provides that a person who is responsible for an animal commits an offence if the person causes an animal unnecessary suffering by an act or omission and the person knew or ought to reasonably have known that the actor omission would have caused a suffering or was likely to do so. However, despite that, I am open to it perhaps being helpful to clearly set out on the face of this bill the specific conditions that we think should apply in this specialised and very difficult area. For that reason, I am happy to accept the principle of this amendment, but I would like to consider the precise wording further. Come back, and if the member was agreeable, do that with an amendment achieving a similar effect at stage 3. I thank Jenny Minto, Colin Smyth, Rachel Hamilton and Edward Mant for lodging amendments in this group. As explained earlier, I support Jenny Minto and Colin Smyth's amendments, which would serve to improve animal welfare, but to achieve the highest possible standards of animal welfare, we need to remove section 5 completely. I urge members to vote for my amendments in this group. I cannot support Edward Mountain or Rachel Hamilton's amendments in this grouping, the majority of which serve to expand this exception and loosen the loophole. The exceptions to this bill should be as few as possible and as narrowly defined as possible to avoid loopholes and situations in which wild animals might suffer. The minister raised concerns that no other more humane methods have been put to her and I am aware of the concerns that removing the exception for foxes could lead to an increase in other cruel practices, such as snaring, blocking up of holes or even poisoning, but we should not be afraid to legislate against cruel practices for the fear of other cruel practices being used. We should legislate against all those cruel practices and ensure that the legislation is enforced and support land managers to adopt more ethical practices that are also more effective for the long term. For example, RSPB do not use dogs to flush foxes and they do not use snaring either. Instead, they use trained marksmen to shoot foxes on grounds of this being the most humane and efficient method of necessary fox control. That is why this bill should encourage the use of wildlife management methods that align with the seven principles of ethical wildlife control. I will ensure that an amendment on this is brought forward in stage 3. I am winding up and I would like to press my amendment. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand clearly now. Those members not supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. The result of the vote is 2 against 0 abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 2, in the name of Arian Burgess, group with amendments as shown in the groupings. Arian Burgess, to move amendment 2 and speak to all amendments in that group. Thank you, convener. My amendment 14 moves the exception that would allow the use of up to two dogs as part of falconry, game shooting and deer stalking. I thank Colin Smith for supporting this amendment. Yes, falconry, game shooting and deer stalking are legal in Scotland but this does not justify the use of dogs when the use of dogs has such an impact on animal welfare that the Scottish Government is bringing in legislation to make it by and large in offence. Why should there be an exception from this offence for sport of all purposes? I support the SSPCA's calls for a complete ban on the use of dogs in sport. That would require removing section 6. Further, we cannot allow this exception to be another loophole for fox hunts, like in England, where hunts have been known to carry birds of prey as a token presence to circumvent the two dog limit there. I urge members of this committee to consider every amendment from this point of view. Could this be used as a loophole? If falconry, game shooting and deer stalking for sport must persist, those activities should have to be done without the use of dogs. Amendments 2, 4, 6 and 8 are consequential from amendment 14. They simply remove all reference to section 6 from sections 1 and 2, which define the offences under the bill. Turning now to other amendments in this group. Colin Smith's amendment 1, 2 and 3 removes falconry for sport but not game shooting or deer stalking from the field sports exception. I support this amendment and urge members to vote for it in case my amendment 14 falls. I also support Colin Smith's amendment 146, which removes the restrictive definition of game shooting from this section, meaning that using dogs or shooting game birds would be subject to the same conditions. I will not support Rachel Hamilton's amendments in this grouping. I move amendment 2, 4, 6, 8 and 14. I urge a committee to support them. I urge the committee to support Colin Smith's amendment 1, 2, 3 and 1, 4, 6, but I vote against Rachel Hamilton's amendments in this group. Rachel Hamilton speaks to amendment 132 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Ruff shooting has been very much in the spotlight over the last few committee sessions. What has been abundantly clear from the outset is that we need an exception for rough shooting. BASC, Countryside Alliance, Scottish Gamekeepers Association and others have put forward credible, well-evidenced and legitimate points as to why rough shooting should continue, unhindered through an exception. During the round table session, the issue of enforcement and proportionality was raised. BASC noted a good working relationship with Police Scotland. However, Peter Clarke from BASC and others noted that they felt that the drafting of the bill meant that they could not conduct a rough shoot with confidence or without fexatious allegations over the breach of the two-dog limit. That is what amendment 142 and its consequentials in my name seek to do. I am mindful, as are BASC and others, that this exception should never be a loophole, not now or in the future. The shooting community wants to continue their lawful, legitimate activity without fear of fexatious allegations. They want to see the highest standards of animal welfare and by allowing an exception for rough shooting so that they can continue their activity. Amendment 142, which was drafted, recognises that during a rough shoot firstly one, two or more dogs are present, however not all dogs are working simultaneously due to the presence of a beating line and standing guns. Dogs do not form a literal pack like hounds, spaniels, labradors and other gun dogs are not pack dogs. This was recognised by the minister in her response to stage 1. The word intention comes into play here in subsection 3. During a rough shoot, it has been made clear by the rural organisations that there is no intention for dogs to form a pack unlike traditional hunting. Amendment 142 provides an exception that cannot be used as a loophole on the following basis. Flushing is the only activity during a rough shoot with a quick and humane dispatch of game birds and rabbits. BASC raised the point that there is no chasing or killing with dogs. Hunting with a licence is an activity that requires more than flushing, therefore anyone trying to use this exception would full foul at the first hurdle of using it as a loophole. In part 3 of my amendment, I make it clear that it is a mixed quarry day and illegal hunt would only seek to kill wild mammals. No birds would be taken during a hunt. This is a key differentiation and, yes, again, anyone seeking to hunt with more than two dogs illegally for the purposes of chasing would have to apply for a licence. With all of this taken into consideration, I would welcome the minister's thoughts on my concerns and the organisation's concerns. If she won't support an exception, how might she later amend the bill to ensure that rough shooting is protected? It is vital that we get this right for rough shooting. Excuse me, convener, but I just need to check that I am speaking to amendment 113, 113, 537, 39 and 43 at this point. On those particular amendments, BASC, the Kennel Club and Scotland's regional moorland groups have all highlighted the bill as unintended consequences on field trials. Gondog trials test the working ability of gondogs in competitive conditions and followed strict regulations set out by the Kennel Club. The Kennel Club is a well-respected organisation that plays a large amount of resource in developing robust and rigorous guidance on the safe, lawful and humane operation of field trials, which is reflected in my amendment. In a similar way to amendment 142, amendment 143, alongside its consequential amendments in my name, allows for field trials to continue unhindered and for those who partake to be confident that they can carry out this activity unhindered. In a recent parliamentary question, the minister confirmed that field trials, which only involve the hunting of birds, are not covered by the provisions of this bill. For field trials that involve the use of dogs to hunt wild mammals, the participants will have to abide by the provisions of the bill. Yet we know that gun dogs are used to flush wild mammals during a field trial, with the gun dog not chasing or killing, therefore in the same way as rough shooting, an exception would be required. Again, I would be grateful if the minister could put on record whether field trials fall under the scope of the bill and if not, whether she and committee members will support my amendment for an exception to allow this legitimate activity to proceed lawfully and unhindered. I am speaking to 227. The minister has stated that she is unwilling to pursue an exception for rough shooting, despite me setting out clearly the various parameters that ensure that an exception would not or not be used as a loophole for other illegal activity. I therefore direct attention to my amendment 227. 227 recognises that during a rough shoot more than two dogs but who are not working simultaneously and more than two dogs but that do not work together in a pack or formation. To reiterate a previous point during a rough shoot, it has been made clear by rural organisations and others that there is no intention for dogs to form a pack unlike other activities. One person uses their dog, their own dog, or two dogs to flush their own quarry, working in proximity to others but not allowing their dogs to form a pack. An exception specifically for rough shooting must be sought for this legitimate activity to continue. It should not be licensed as that is not a practical option nor is it in the intention of the bill. An exception or other mechanism to allow rough shooting to continue unhindered must be considered. I welcome the thoughts of both my MSP colleagues and the minister. In amendment 228, the wording used in this area of the bill is highly emotive. 228 would replace it with neutral language, which is felt by stakeholders more appropriate. I would add that the objective is to kill the wild mammal for purposes set out throughout the bill, not simply for it to be attacked. The term kill is used throughout the rest of this part of the bill and this amendment would ensure drafting consistency. I thank you for your forbearance. I call on Smith to speak to amendment 123 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I support amendment 14 in Arianna or just name and the consequential amendments 246 and 8 to remove the whole of section 6. I do not believe that we should be killing animals for sport and not removing this section would undermine both the purpose and the overall effectiveness of the bill. The minister stated in oral evidence that in this bill the Scottish Government was pursuing and I quote the highest possible animal welfare standards seeking to, and again I quote, rectify what was supposed to have been done 20 years ago. If this bill is to rectify the flaws in the 2002 act, then there must be a minimal exception and it must not be for sport and reasons. If members do not support the amendments to remove section 6, amendments 123 and 146 in my name would remove falconry as a permitted use of dogs. The Rain Committee rightly questioned the inclusion of falconry in its stage 1 report. Members asked for further information about why an exception for falconry has been included in the scope of the bill and raised concerns about section 6 2e, the requirement that wild mammals being searched for, stocked or flushed, could be shot dead or killed by a bird of prey. I do not believe that the Scottish Government's response provides adequate reasons as to how flushing a wild mammal to a waiting bird of prey to be killed can be considered any more humane than being killed by a dog and arguing, as the Scottish Government do, that falconry is a permitted activity as an even less convincing argument. The question is, should it be a permitted activity? From an animal welfare point of view, the answer is very much no. I would therefore urge members to support amendments to remove the very least falconry from the bill's exceptions. My concerns in this section turn around the heading of game shooting and the definition of game and what game is. This is defined in various acts and is unclear, I believe, in the way it is being used here. A definition of wild game would be ungulate and lagomorphs and other land mammals that are hunted for human consumption. That would cover and that is the definition used within the UK legislation. I am a little bit concerned about the word game shooting and the definition of it here, which has prompted my amendments on amendments 100, 101 and 102. For example, I don't believe that all deer stalking is done for sport. A lot of deer stalking is done for deer control methods. For example, I can give you an example if I may, a large block of forestry where the fence had fallen down, deer had got in and dogs were used to move the deer around the plantation to allow them to be eradicated so that the Caledonian pines within that block were allowed to flourish. Deer stalking is also carried out on open ground and within the Forestry Commission. I would suggest to you or Forestry Land Scotland—I should get the terminology right—that somebody who goes out to shoot deer, which are classed as game, and are given a target of killing 300 deer a year, which many rangers are. They would not say that was sport. They would say that was purely deer control. I would also suggest that falconry is not, which may be used to control game, is not always carried out for sport. One has to look no further than outside this Parliament. I know that it is not to do with mammals, but where falcons are used to keep pigeons off the roofs so that they do not block the gutters and move pigeons away from the Parliament, I do not think that sport and I do not think that also falconry used in some circumstances to keep mammals away is used for sport. I also suggest that by the definition of game shooting, the definition of game is so wide that all game, ie deer, sheep are actually classed as game, wild sheep and wild goats. I am not sure that I see them as that. The control of those actually is for sport. It is, in most cases, for environmental reasons. That is the reason why I was suggesting that we just remove the word sport from those definitions so that there would be no confusion, because game are not just killed for sport. As far as the other amendments in the section concerned, I understand both Harry M Burgess's and Colin Smyth's position on these. It is suffice to say that I do not believe that they are correct, and I would find them difficult to support because of the support that those activities that they seek to ban promote in the countryside, providing employment jobs and also the management of the environment, which we are so proud of in Scotland, carried out by people such as gamekeepers and rough shooters. Does any other member wish to speak before inviting the minister, Mercedes Verlalba? Thank you, convener. I am grateful to all members who have lodged amendments in this grouping. I will be supporting amendments 2, 4, 6, 8 and 14—sounds like a song—in the name of Harry M Burgess, as they remove the exception for falcony game shooting and deer stalking for sport. We have frequently heard from the Scottish Government of the need to balance animal welfare with wildlife management needs, and it is not clear to me how any of the activities in this exception meet either of those categories, so I have failed to see a place for this exception in this bill. The primary reason for this exception seems to be so that the Scottish Government can try to avoid a row with the field sporting lobby, although that clearly has not worked. Regardless, I believe that removing this exception altogether would strengthen the bill, failing this. I will take an intervention. I just wondered what the animal welfare implications of rough shooting are. You seem to mention that those activities compromise animal welfare. The intention of the bill, as I understand it, is to uphold the highest standards of animal welfare whilst balancing the need to manage wildlife. My understanding is that these sporting activities—the primary reason for them—is neither animal welfare nor wildlife management. We heard in regards to rough shootings that the primary reason was for enjoyment and pleasure, so that is my meaning with my explanation for not supporting those amendments. Failing the removal of this exception altogether, I think that the next most reasonable course would be to remove the exception for falconry, as it is not clear to me why this has been included in the bill. I will support amendments 1, 2, 3 and 1, 4 and 6 in the name of Colin Smith. I cannot support amendments 1, 3, 2 to 1, 3, 9 and 1, 4, 2 to 1, 4, 3 in the name of Rachel Hamilton as they create additional exceptions for hunting with dogs and allow more than two dogs, which is inconsistent with the rest of the bill. I was interested to hear Rachel Hamilton's explanation of amendment 228 with regards to language choice and avoiding emotive language. I would be interested to hear the minister's response to that point. I was also interested to hear the explanation for amendments 100 to 102 from Edward Mountain. I am not currently minded to support those amendments, so I would be interested to hear the minister's response to those as well. I now invite the minister to speak to the amendments in the group. First, as regards Arianne Burgess's melodic amendments 2, 4, 6, 8 and 14, those remove the exception at section 6 from the bill with the effect that it would be unlawful to use a dog to search for flush, a wild animal for the purposes of providing quarry for falconry, game shooting or deer stalking. That section covers a wide range of recreational activities that make a significant contribution to rural economy and rural culture. They all may use dogs at some time to search for or flush wild animals for the purpose of shooting or, in the case of falconry, killing by a bird of prey. It is right therefore that they come within the scope of the bill and are regulated as other uses of dogs in the course of hunting in the countryside will be. Again, that is the consistency point that is so important to the bill. However, there are lawful activities. The purpose of the bill is to ensure that, where dogs are used, they are used in a way that protects wild mammals welfare. It is not to ban otherwise permitted and lawful activities. Members made a comment about the Government seeking to avoid a row. That is not the case at all, but it is about us as the executive and the Parliament as a legislature sticking within the remit of what is intended, what is being consulted on and what is expected from the bill. I cannot support those amendments. As regards amendments 1, 3, 2, 1, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 1, 4, 2, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, inserting a new clause after section 6, allowing for the use of any number of dogs for the purpose of rough shooting. Rachel Hamilton is quite right that there has been a great deal of exchange on the issue of rough shooting and I spoke about it at length last week. I will reiterate that the bill as drafted allows for the majority of permutations of rough shooting to continue. Some events may need to adapt, as we discussed last week, but usually make a minimal change to how they undertake their activity. I think, as I said, that minimal change is justified when you set that against the risk of creating a new loophole where people would be able to take as many dogs as they would like, would say that they were rough shooting and would in turn besmarch the actual legitimate activity of rough shooting in Scotland. Equally, as I explained last week, the consistency of the bill is a strength and we could not justify creating an exemption for regulation of rough shooters, not an unimportant activity, but essentially recreational, when, for example, farmers will have to change their behaviour and comply in seeking to protect their livestock or essential purposes such as environmental management. Yes, I will. Thank you to the minister for taking me intervention. The difference in rough shooting, I mean, I know that we're going to disagree with this, because I still don't believe that rough shooting can be used as a cover for other activities. However, on the basis that I made two clear points that the only activity that is done within rough shooting is flushing and that in rough shooting the bag is mixed quarry, and so therefore there is almost no event where it can be used as a cover because it is so different. Well, I take on board the point and I know that we discussed this great deal last week and in other exchanges, but the concern about rough shooting becoming a cover for unlawful activity after the bill is one important reason why it needs to be included and why we can't create an exception. Of course, the others are those that I've spoken about, which is that we can't ask farmers to comply with this consistent piece of regulation when what they're doing is seeking to protect their livestock with very serious economic implications and then, on the other hand, not ask a risk-creational activity to comply with the same regulation. That would be unjustified and it's a combination of reasons as to why we can't allow this exception. I know that Rachel Hamilton spoke of the perceived risk of vexatious claims and, as I said last week, I understand this but I don't think that we can allow any perceived risk of vexatious claims to facilitate what would be a really significant undermining of the bill in the case of an exemption. However, I did say last week that I'd be content to work with the shooting industry on guidance post-legislative, post-legislation passing in order to try and manage down the risk of vexatious claims. Of course, I continue to consider how best to formulate the bill and if improvements can be made to clarify our position, as it has been explained, but, for the reason stated, I can't support those amendments. Amendments 1, 3, 3, 1, 3, 5, 1, 3, 7, 1, 3, 9 and 1, 4, 3, creating a new exception and exception for field trials. Much of the reasoning here is the same as before. Again, we have discussed at length how rough shooting and field trials where mammals are pursued are included within but can continue under the bill. It doesn't matter how many dogs that are present at the event as a whole or whether a dog is simultaneously carrying out a separate searching, flushing or retrieving activity, provided no more than two dogs ever joined to find and flush quarry together, then there's no reason to think that field trials are not compatible with the bill as drafted or could not continue. Just for the record, is field trials falling under the scope of the bill? Is that correct? Yes. Similarly to the use of dogs in the course of hunting throughout the countryside. Again, it's that consistent point. For those reasons, I don't support those amendments. I move to Colin Smyth's amendments 1, 2, 3 and 1, 4, 6, removing the ability of a person to use dogs to search for or flush wild mammals for falconry. I think that, as previously set out when talking to amendments in the name of Ariane Burgess, the bill is about regulating the use of dogs when used in the course of hunting wild mammals. Falconry is a lawful form of hunting and, as long as dogs are used in accordance with the requirements of this bill, it's not justifiable to single it out and apply additional restrictions just as it's not appropriate to single out rough shooting and apply lesser restrictions. We must guard against anything that would ban an otherwise lawful activity by the back door, not least because there's been no consultation on any proposal to effectively ban falconers from hunting, and it's not within what's intended by the bill. I move to amendment 227, in Rachael Hamilton's name. I do not support those amendments because they are not necessary and they risk uncertainty and inconsistencies throughout the bill. It's something that we've worked very hard to avoid and have been praised by Lord Bonomy. To give Rachael Hamilton assurance that what she's attempting here is already provided by the bill, the amendment, in my view, is therefore not necessary and would create inconsistencies in expression. I've also mentioned before that creating special arrangements for a single recreational pursuit opens up to abuse by those who are looking for loopholes to get around the law. That's very kind of a minister, thank you. I just want also for you to put on the record with regard to the types of dogs that are working in a rough shoot and my points that I made specifically about forming a pack and the formation of a pack because, as has been discussed in previous evidence sessions, the types of dogs that are used in rough shoots such as spaniels and other working dogs are not trained to work in a pack as are other dogs that are trained specifically to work as a team. There is quite a lot of anomaly here within the differences of the activities that really this in my mind is not proportionate because there's no definition of a pack in working dogs do not work in a pack. Just to pick up on the last point, I think that we discussed last week that a pack for the purposes of the bill is defined, it's more than two. As I said and I was happy to put on the record last week, I understand that the dogs generally used in the course of rough shooting gun dogs are well trained, they don't chase, they don't form packs but that, as I said last week, gives me confidence that they will be able to comply with what is a minor adjustment under the bill in order to provide consistency of application by all uses of dogs in the countryside in the course of hunting in Scotland. I hope that that clarifies the member's point or puts on the record what she was hoping to draw out. Moving to amendments 100 to 102 in the name of Edward Mountain, amending the section 6 definitions of deer stalking and removing the word sport for the reasons explained. First of all, Edward Mountain mentions different purposes of deer stalking but I would reassure him that while section 6 covers recreational pursuits, we absolutely acknowledge that there are other reasons for pursuing deer stalking. For example, those for tree protection or other environmental reasons would be covered under sections 3 or 7. I understand that for some the motivation for taking part in these may not always be sport. We discussed last week how the provision of food may be involved or could be undertaken for a combination of reasons. However, the use of the term sport is helpful in that context as it distinguishes between the recreational nature of those pursuits and wildlife management for economic or other environmental reasons. While I am slightly mollified by what the minister said, my concern is the definition of game and how it might be used in the act. If you look back to the game act of 1831 and if you look then at the wildlife and countryside act in 1981, I think it is as amended the definition of game is not changed from the 1831 act. I wonder if in a hope to find a solution to this, the minister might find time for her officials to work with me to further explore this to see whether those amendments are needed. Yes, I have no problem with that at all, convener. I would be happy to discuss that and to look back at some of that old legislation with you as well, more than happy to do so. For the purposes of today, I cannot support those amendments as they stand. I do not think that they are required or indeed helpful. Finally, amendment 228 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, I agree with Rachel Hamilton that killing should be the intention of the person using the bird of prey rather than just attacking. I have listened to Rachel Hamilton's arguments and I am happy to support that amendment. I thank Colin Smyth, Rachel Hamilton and Edward Mountain for lodging and speaking to their amendments in this group. We are legislating today for a future Scotland and, as we must appropriately and urgently respond to the climate and nature emergency, it will be a very different Scotland, rural Scotland and its economy and practices must change. Colin Smyth's amendments would result in greater protection for wild mammals, which is the key purpose of this bill, so I support them. To afford them even greater protection, we should remove this section completely, so I urge members to vote for my amendments in this group. Again, I cannot support Edward Mountain or Rachel Hamilton's amendments in this grouping, the majority of which serve to weaken protections for wild mammals and loosen this loophole. Thank you for taking the intervention. I just want to get some clarity on this. You want to remove section 6, but you also said that you believe that rural, I do not know what your words were, rural people, rural life should change or must change. Does that mean that you want to see a full ban on all country activities that include shooting, rough shooting and anything else? Is that the intention here? I'll speak to rough shooting in a moment, but I think that we've just had the UKCC report and that's calling us to make changes. We as a committee are going to be looking at various things over the coming months and the Parliament is going to be looking at various bills over the coming months, and we need to be radically changing what we're doing. That's something that we should be bearing in mind. When we're legislating today for something that's going to be used in the future, we need to be thinking about why we're legislating here. There are pressures that we perceive now, but they will be different pressures or different things in the future. I think that it's just that challenging thing that we have as people involved in legislation is that we're working today for something that is going to have to radically change. I'm particularly concerned about Rachel Hamilton's rough shooting amendment, and I thank the minister for clarifications in this area. In written evidence, Police Scotland stated that although most individuals would respect this law, this aspect of the bill provides a platform to conduct illegal hunting, utilising packs of dogs. SSPCA made a similar point. As soon as it becomes a loophole, those who are not law abiding will use it as an excuse, which will tarnish everybody who does use it lawfully. I'm going to continue on, actually. This is even more likely to happen because Rachel Hamilton's amendment 142, which creates the exception, does not place a limit on the number of dogs as the other exceptions do. Rachel Hamilton questioned how rough shooting does not comply with the highest possible standard of animal welfare. It's because killing animals for sport is not necessary or justified, so it would not align with the ethical principles for wildlife control. I'd like to respond to Edward Mountain's point that falconry and deer stocking is not always done for sport. I accept that, but this section of the bill is seeking to legislate specifically on deer stocking and falconry for sport. His examples would be governed under section 7, the exception for environmental benefit. Are we legislating for the Scotland of the past, the Scotland of today or the Scotland of the future? Do we want to be a country where we prioritise the entertainment of humans who enjoy hunting over the very life of sentient wild mammals, and I press my amendment 2? The question is that amendment 2 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No, we are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hands now. Those members not supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members wishing to abstain, please raise your hands now. We have two, four, seven again, zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 132 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 2. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 132 be agreed. Are we agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hands now. Those members not supporting the amendment, please raise your hands now. Those members wishing to abstain, we have two, four, seven again, zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 133 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 2. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 133 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hands now. Those members not supporting the amendment, please raise your hands now. Those members wishing to abstain, we have two, four, five against one abstention. The amendment has not been agreed. We are now going to take a break until 11 o'clock, just a short comfort break. We will return at 11 o'clock. I call amendment 148 in the name of the minister. Group with amendments is shown in the groupings. Minister to move amendment 148 and speak to all amendments in the group. I move amendment 148. Those amendments introduce a new section after section 6 of the bill. This section creates a new exception to the offences in sections 1 and 2 of the bill, which will allow for searching for injured wild mammals. The exceptions already in the bill allow for the use of up to two dogs to search for an animal that has been injured by an attempt to kill it in the course of hunting with dogs. However, as drafted, the bill does not allow for the use of dogs to search for a wild mammal that has been injured in a manner not related to hunting. Engagement with stakeholders at stage 1, including Forestry and Land Scotland, highlighted that it is necessary to include an exception that allows the use of dogs to search for an injured wild mammal in those circumstances. FLS has on occasion deployed dogs to search for deer that have been injured as part of a road traffic incident or where a member of the public spots an injured animal on their land. I know that the committee has also acknowledged the comments made by stakeholders during your evidence sessions and have noted the absence of a provision to allow for two dogs to search for and retrieve a wild mammal that has been injured not in the course of hunting. In my response, I announced my intention to address that at stage 1. Similarly, amendments 169, 149, 151, 153 and 155 introduced another new exception that allows the use of up to two dogs to search for dead wild animals. The definition of wild mammal in the bill does not specifically exclude deceased wild mammals. Therefore, it applies to both living and dead wild mammals that fall within the definition. Therefore, to be able to use a dog to search for a dead wild animal, we do need to provide an exception now to allow that. Having spoken to stakeholders, there are many different examples of using dogs to search for dead wild animals—sorry, mammals—carried out by a variety of people for a variety of purposes. Some examples that the committee will be interested to note include Police Scotland searching for dead wild mammals as part of the investigation of wildlife crime or researchers and surveyors assessing the impact of any manner of development on different species. In order to prevent a loophole where a person could either use either of those exceptions as a cover for the illegal hunting of live wild mammals, for example by claiming their pack of 10 dogs were searching for an injured or dead wild mammal, we have applied the same safeguards that have been included in sections 3, 5, 6 and 7, namely that the person using those exceptions must not use more than two dogs, we must take steps to ensure that those dogs do not join with others to form a pack and the person must have permission from the landowner or otherwise be authorised to enter land. Moving to section 168A, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, this removes the two dog limit from the new exception that I would be purporting to include under section 168. As I have just said, this would be a very obvious loophole, as it would allow more than two dogs, any number of dogs, to search for an injured animal. I can see how a person could very easily claim that their pack of 10 dogs were searching for injured wild mammals as a cover for illegal hunting. Just to be clear, the two dog limit throughout the bill is there because, as we have discussed, there will be greater control over one or two dogs than over a pack, and where there is less control, i.e., over a pack of dogs, there is always a higher risk of more than two chasing, killing wild mammals. I was just concluding, but I'm happy to take any comments from Edward Mountain. I'm pleased to see this new section in. One of my concerns has always been that there are road traffic accidents with deer, which often result in deer getting hit with a broken leg, either front or back, possibly only one. Where that happens, following them up can take hours and hours and hours, and it's really difficult to do. Does the minister accept that, in those circumstances where it's justifiable, using more than two dogs might be appropriate to prevent the suffering that has been often caused by people going too fast on roads and not paying any attention to the wildlife on them? I wouldn't accept that. I absolutely accept the premise of the point and the circumstances that Edward Mountain points to are exactly those that the provision is seeking to rise to, for example, those that have been shared with us by Forestry and Land Scotland. However, I don't accept that it would be necessary or acceptable to allow more than two dogs to undertake that activity. Rachael Hamilton, to speak to amendment 168A and other amendments in the group. I concur with comments from my colleague Edward Mountain on the fact that using more than two dogs would be appropriate in certain circumstances where animals have been injured. Sometimes the situation that he describes, where my own daughter had hit a deer and there was no idea where that deer had got to, whether it was injured or where it had fallen, at that point, of course, we didn't need to use dogs. However, there are situations in rough terrain that more than two dogs would be appropriate. Relieving the suffering of injured wild mammals is rightly prioritised in my amendment. My amendment to the minister's own amendments adds those reasonable steps that I believe must be taken to ensure that animals that have been injured are located and where the injury occurred as a result of the accepted activity. It is not as if the amendment is creating a loophole. The amendment is purely for animal welfare reasons. Unlike the 2002 act, there is no recognition that dogs may need to be used to relieve suffering, as I have just described, or to locate or retrieve animals where one of the exceptions would not and could not apply. However, that amendment could rectify an omission. I do not accept the dismissal from the minister of that and her description that it could be used as a loophole. I think that that is a really important amendment. I would ask the minister to reconsider that and possibly come back in good faith to work with me on something that we could look at, that might tighten what the minister is concerned about and ensure that the absolute highest standards of animal welfare are delivered. Any other members wish to speak before inviting it? I will be supporting amendments 148 to 155 and 168 to 169 in the name of Minister Mary McCallan as they create an exception for relieving the suffering of injured wild mammals and for searching for dead wild mammals without exceeding the two-dog limit. On that basis, I cannot support amendment 168a in the name of Rachel Hamilton, which would remove the two-dog limit from the new exceptions, which I feel would create a potential loophole. I am concerned about this. I will give you a real-life example of a deer that was hit by a lorry and it got hit in the jaw and it broke its jaw. It took four days of following that animal out before it was possible to put it out of its misery. It couldn't eat, it was struggling to breathe, but it was still capable of running. The problem is that that animal might well have been able to have been tracked down if more than two dogs were being used, but it went into a 200-acre wood and the best we could do to get it to put it out of its misery was precluded because there were only two dogs. I would have thought of an exception, which was carefully worded, where there was evidence proved that more than two dogs were required, which should be perfectly justifiable on the grounds of being humane. I have said from the introduction of the bill that I am always happy to work with stakeholders and members of Parliament to ensure that the bill is as effective as possible. Those amendments are an example of having done that. On the exception to search for injured wild animals, it was evidence provided by stakeholders at stage 1 and the recommendations of the committee at stage 1, which have made the amendment abundantly necessary. The exception to search for dead wild animals was also developed after discussion with stakeholders. I hope that members agree with my reason for including those and support them and my reasons for rejecting Rachael Hamilton's amendment. I am sorry to hear about Rachael Hamilton's daughter's incident. I hope that all members are okay. I would say that those amendments have been developed closely in consultation with stakeholders, including, as I mentioned, with Forestry and Land Scotland. I have not had evidence that more than two dogs would be required in order to fulfil the activity. It is clear to me, as it is to many, that someone could easily claim that their pack of 10 dogs were searching for injured wild mammals and that that would be a too convenient cover for the illegal hunting of live wild mammals. For that reason, I cannot support the amendment that would create inconsistencies and loopholes in the bill. The question is that amendment 148 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes, we are agreed. Can I call amendment 149 in the name of the minister who is already debated with amendment 148? Minister to formally move. The question is that amendment 149 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 58 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 131. Edward Mountain, to move or not move, moved. The question is that amendment 58 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise their hands now. Those members not supporting the amendment, please raise your hands now. I call amendment 63 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 131. Edward Mountain, to move or not move, moved. The question is that amendment 63 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will now be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members wishing to abstain. That's two four, seven against zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 64 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 131. Edward Mountain, to move or not move, moved. The question is that amendment 64 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, raise your hands. Those members not supporting the amendment, raise your hand. Those members wishing to abstain. That's two four, seven against zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 65 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 131. Edward Mountain, to move or not move, moved. The question is that amendment 65 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment. Those members wishing to abstain. That's two four, seven against zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 66 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 131. Edward Mountain, to move or not move, moved. The question is that amendment 66 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hands now. Those members not supporting the amendment, those abstaining. We will run that vote again, it wasn't clear. Those supporting the amendment, those against the amendment, those abstaining. That's two four, seven against zero abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 67 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 131. Edward Mountain, to move or not move. Not moved on the basis that it's not clear whether I meant native pole cat or feral pole cat, and therefore I will amend it to break a packet stage three. That amendment has not been moved, so we will not consider it. We will move on to amendment 68, in the name of Edward Mountain. Already debated with amendment 131. Edward Mountain, to move or not move, moved. The question is that amendment 68 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand. Those members not supporting the amendment, please raise your hand. Those members abstaining. We have two four, seven against zero abstention. The amendment therefore has not been carried. The question is that section 1 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 3 in the name of Arian Burgess, already debated with amendment 1. Arian Burgess, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will now be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment, those members wishing to abstain. That is two four, seven against zero abstentions. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 4 in the name of Arian Burgess, already debated with amendment 2. Arian Burgess, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will now be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand. Those members not supporting the amendment, those members wishing to abstain. We have two four, seven against the amendment, therefore has not been carried. I call amendment 1 3 4 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 2. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 1 3 4 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment, those members wishing to abstain. That is two four, seven against zero abstentions. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 1 3 5 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 2. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 1 3 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand. Those members not supporting the amendment, those members wishing to abstain. That is two four, six against one abstention. The amendment therefore is not agreed. I call amendment 150 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 1 4 8. The question is that amendment 150 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 151 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 148. Minister, to formally move. The question is that amendment 151 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 59 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 131. Edward Mountain, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 59 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise their hands. Those members not supporting. Those members wishing to abstain. We have two four, seven against zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 5 in the name of Ariane Burgess, already debated with amendment 1. Ariane Burgess, to move or not move. The question is that question 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. This is not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment. Those members abstaining. That's two four, seven against no abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 6 in the name of Ariane Burgess, already debated with amendment 2. Ariane Burgess, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand. Those members not supporting. Those members wishing to abstain. That's two four, seven against zero abstentions. The amendment has not been carried. I call amendment 136 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 2. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 136 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand. Those members not supporting the amendment, and those wishing to abstain. The result is two four, seven against. The amendment has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 137 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 2. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 137 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment. Those members wishing to abstain. We have two four, six against and one abstention. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 152 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 148. The question is that amendment 152 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 153 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 148. The question is that amendment 153 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 60 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 131. Edward Mountain, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 60 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment. Those members who wish to abstain. We have two four, seven against, zero abstentions. The amendment therefore has not been carried. I call amendment 110 in the name of Colin Smith, already debated with amendment 131. Colin Smith, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 110 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members against the amendment raise your hand now. Those members wishing to abstain. That is two four, seven against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 7 in the name of Ariane Burgess, already debated with amendment 1. Ariane Burgess, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment. Those members wishing to abstain. The result is two four, seven against, zero abstentions. The amendment has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 138 in the name of Ariane Burgess, already debated with amendment 2. Ariane Burgess, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting. Those members wishing to abstain. The result is two four, seven against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 138 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 2. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 138 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand. Those members not supporting the amendment. Those members wishing to abstain. It's two four, seven against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 139 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 2. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 139 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment. Those members wishing to abstain. That's two four, six against. One abstention. The amendment has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 154 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 148. The question is that amendment 154 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 155 in the name of the minister, already debated with 148. Minister, to move formally. The question is that amendment 155 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 61 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 131. Edward Mountain, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 61 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment. Those members wishing to abstain. The result is two four, seven against. Zero abstentions. The amendment therefore is not agreed. The question is that section 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 35 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Rachel Hamilton, to move amendment 35 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Amendment 35 addresses a semantic point within the bill. Hunting with dogs in the context of this amendment is necessary to protect livestock, woodland or crops from being attacked or degraded by foxes and other pest species. The threshold for what constitutes serious damage as opposed to any kind of damage is undefined. It is important that livestock, woodland and crops should be protected from any kind of harm. Farmer's livelihoods now more than ever are under pressure, as we have heard in evidence from the NFUS. We cannot allow for loose terms such as serious to dictate the gravity of damage. Therefore, my amendment would remove the word serious from this section of the bill to make it clear that an exemption would apply to protect farmers' stocks and their livelihoods. I understand the concerns around animal welfare that underpin the second part of the amendment. However, the undertones are that it is not standard practice to implement the most appropriate practical solution to wild mammal control and that the use of dogs is less humane than any other methods. On the contrary, those who are participating in the control of wild mammals are best placed to discern what is appropriate, proportionate and humane. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that the method of mammal control is less humane than others. I do not therefore feel that those amendments are necessary. Amendments 1.1.2, 1.1.4, 1.1.4.5, 1.1.4.7 would prohibit the use of dogs for searching, stalking, flushing wild mammals during their breeding season and does not take into account the need for year-round control. A lamb does not suddenly become less susceptible to protection by wild mammals just because it is within their breeding season. The reasonable justification for the use of dogs to search, stalk and flush centres around the necessity to do so. Breeding seasons do not negate that necessity. Again, I understand the animal welfare concerns underpin those amendments, but it cannot be supported for the reasons that I have outlined. Colin Smyth's amendments 1.1.8 and 1.1.4. I have some concerns around the welfare element of Colin Smyth's amendments 1.1.8 and 1.1.4.4. Removing this part of the bill to use dogs to relieve the suffering of dependent fox or mink would mean that those animals would be left to suffer unable to fend for themselves. The purpose of including this in the bill, as the section states, is to relieve suffering. I fail to understand how removing this would have any effect on them to promote the suffering of dependent animals. I therefore also cannot support those amendments. Colin Smyth, to speak to amendment 1.1.1 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Amendments 1.1.1.1.1.1.9 and 1.2.7 in my name seek to ensure that the use of dogs and hunting are a last resort. It requires a person using dogs to be able to show that they had evidence that the use of dogs would meet the purpose of preventing damage, not simply reducing the number of a certain species as the two are not necessarily linked, and that they had considered more humane methods and had reasonable grounds to believe that those would not be as effective. If it does not stop the use of dogs, it merely requires a justification for their use, introducing a comfortability, which is currently lacking in the bill. Amendments 1.1.2, 1.1.8, 1.4.4, 1.4.5 and 1.4.7 would introduce a closed season in the use of dogs, which is a basic animal welfare and conservation measure, reducing the perceived need to send dogs underground to relieve the suffering of a dependent fox or mink, which is currently permitted at section 5.2 indeed. Amendment 1.1.8 is consequential to 1.1.2. This amendment would be required if amendment 1.1.2 is passed, providing a closed season for wild mammals during their breeding seasons and ovating the supposed need to use dogs below ground to dispatch orphaned fox clubs who would otherwise die of dehydration or starvation. This is a basic animal welfare and conservation measure, not killing animals with young. Section 5 allows for the use of dogs underground, so the two are linked. Amendment 1.2.2 seeks to remove subsection 4, which states, in this section, dependent means that the mother of a fox or mink is dead and is too young to survive on its own. This is consequential and, if amendment 1.1.8 passes, my amendment 1.2.2 is no longer needed as there is no other reference to dependent animals in section 5. I would therefore urge members to support amendments to ensure that using dogs to kill wild mammals is a last resort and we do not create loopholes in a bill that is designed to close those loopholes. I am slightly concerned with Colin's amendments. I am sure that he will have remembered the old adage that rabbits breed all year round, so there would be no way that you could control them at all by flushing them, because they could have dependent young on them all year round. That is a fact of life. Nature is also clever that breeding takes place for foxes at the time of the year when there are other vulnerable animals around, such as lambs. Where there are lambs around, I think that Mr Felly gave the example during one of the examples of a vixen with no teeth. He was preying on lambs during the lambing season was a particular problem. He cannot stop, in my mind, controlling problem animals, because they may be in their breeding season. That then gives rise to the problem that, where there are dependent young, you have to humanely dispatch them. Colin Smyth's amendments are fatally flawed for the fact that they do not take into account the problems that are being dependent on the breeding season, i.e., when you cannot kill them, is the time that is perhaps causing the biggest problem. I also do scratch my head to understand how Colin believes that having agreed to rabbits in this bill that he is then precluding them because he cannot kill them during the breeding season, which I have explained to Colin is only around. I will support all the amendments in the name of Colin Smyth in this grouping and urge all members to do the same. Amendments 111, 119 and 127 require a person to demonstrate the appropriacy of method, ensuring that it is the most humane method. Amendments 112, 144, 145 and 147 require the activity in the exception to not take place during breeding season, which I support as a basic animal welfare and conservation measure. I cannot support amendment 35 in the name of Rachael Hamilton, as I feel it weakens the language of the bill. No other members? The minister, please. Taking amendment 35 in the name of Rachael Hamilton, which seeks to remove the word serious from the section 3 purpose of preventing serious damage to livestock woodland or crops, the preventing serious damage test included in the bill is the same test that is used for section 16 licences under the wildlife and countryside act of 1981 and regulation 44 licences under the conservation natural habitats regulations of 94. Removing serious from the permitted purpose under section 3 would lower the test for the use of more dogs plainly. That would make it possible to use two dogs to search for stalker flushwell mammals even where the potential damage to livestock woodland or crops was trivial. It could flow from that that licences, because we have a licensing scheme connected with section 3, could then be granted under section 4, which would enable packs of dogs to be used to prevent minimal damage to livestock. It lowers the test for the exception under section 3, and, for that reason, I cannot support it. Amendments 111, 119 and 127 in the name of Colin Smyth, inserting the additional conditions that must be met before using a dog to hunt. Consider that very closely. To me, it is unclear what kind of evidence would be sufficient to meet those tests and who the person would be demonstrating it to. Perhaps more over the amendment makes use of concepts that are not found elsewhere in the bill, including the most humane method. The bill obviously refers to the minimum possible suffering, and the amendment refers to the person responsible for the activity. The effect would be to introduce an inconsistency into the bill, something that my team and I have been trying very hard to avoid. However, I understand the intention behind Colin Smyth's amendments. I have considered it closely. I am satisfied that the bill is currently drafted and contains a number of tests that must be fulfilled that are sufficient to achieve the aim of our bill, namely reducing the risk of wild mammals being chased and killed by packs of dogs. The committee will be familiar with those, but they are the searching for, stalking or flushing must be for a purpose that is allowed under the bill. Any dog-used activity must be under control, landowner permission must have been given and reasonable steps have to be taken to ensure that the dogs do not join to form a pack. I believe that those tests are sufficient in achieving the aim of the bill. The amendments are unnecessary and could cause confusion. However, I am moving to Colin Smyth's other amendments, 1.1.2, 1.1.8, 1.4.4, 1.2.2, 1.4.5 and 1.4.7, inserting a new condition to each exception as regards the breeding season. Those amendments would also remove reference to a Defendant Fox or Minx from section 5 on the basis that it would not be possible to hunt those animals at a time that they would have dependence. Again, I have considered those closely. They would have an impact on the ability of a land manager to undertake effective predator control at what is undoubtedly a crucial point. As we have noted, the breeding season for foxes coincides with lambing season when farmers are more likely to be undertaking necessary fox management. They would be unable to do that at this time of year, which is arguably the most essential time for the protection of their livestock. As Edward Mountain noted, it is true to say that rabbits can breed all year round, and that would effectively contain the ability to control them using dogs at any point. In my view, those types of issues are important, but they are more appropriately examined for the species as a whole rather than in respect of a single type of control and close seasons for certain mammals. Of course, they are set out in the Wildlife and Countryside Act or DIR Act, as the case may be. I think that those amendments would cause significant issues for predator control, and therefore I am unable to support them. Having listened to Colin Smyth's description of the reason behind his amendments, I believe that it shows a lack of understanding of management in the countryside. I think that it pulls the rug from underneath the feet of farmers who want to protect their livelihoods, and it is completely unnecessary. With regard to the minister's comments on the damage to crops of the livestock and woodland, I do not believe that removing the word serious is overreaching. She did not describe it as that, but I do not believe that that is trivial because it ensures that farmers can protect their livelihoods within the parameters of the legislation that the Scottish Government wishes to set out. The minister always said that she wanted this legislation to be practical and workable, and I think that we need to ensure that when we are considering legislation that we do understand the ramifications for, particularly in this circumstance, farmers and their ability to use the methods that they have within their reaches to protect their livelihoods. I am slightly disappointed that the minister has not accepted my point on that. I want to put on the record that I was not suggesting that the issue of farmers protecting livestock itself was trivial. My point was that removing the seriousness test could allow trivial activities to come within the terms of it, but not that the need to protect the livestock in the first place was trivial. I was a bit alarmed when I heard that word. On that point, I will press my amendment. The question is that amendment 35 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment please raise your hand now. Those members wishing to abstain. The result is 2 for 7 against 0 abstentions. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 111, in the name of Colin Smith, already debated with amendment 35. Colin Smith to move or not move. The question is that amendment 111 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not all agreed. There will now be a division. Those members supporting the amendment please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment please raise your hand now. Those members wishing to abstain. The result is 2 for 7 against 0 abstentions. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 112, in the name of Colin Smith, already debated with amendment 35. Colin Smith to move or not move. The question is that amendment 112 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment please raise your hand now. Those members wishing to abstain. The result is 2 for 7 against 0 abstentions. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 9, in the name of Ariane Burgess, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. I remind members of the pre-emptions in this group. Ariane Burgess to move amendment 9 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. My amendment 9 to 12 and 14 to 18 in this grouping move the provision for licences permitting the use of more than two dogs. In any circumstances remove all references to the licensing scheme. My amendments 19 and 20 are consequential and remove further sections about the licensing schemes. Licencing the use of two dogs does not align with the aim to pursue the highest possible animal welfare standards. Foxes hunted by packs of dogs are not killed quickly but endure enormous physical and psychological suffering before death, which can involve being torn limb from limb by dogs. The committee heard that around 40 per cent of foxes hunted with packs of dogs are actually killed by the dogs. The licensing scheme would be the biggest loophole for those who enjoy hunting wild mammals with packs. 87 per cent of the Scottish public want a watertight ban on fox hunting with packs. Let's deliver that, not perpetuate the current situation where conviction is in the words of Police Scotland impossible. Bringing in a strict limit of two dogs without a licensing scheme to allow use of more would make enforcement of the law much more straightforward. I urge members to support the amendments in my name and I move the amendment. I ask you about your point about the public wanting to ban fox hunting. Is fox hunting not already banned? No, fox hunting is not banned and this is partly why that this bill is being brought forward. The 2002 animal welfare act had loopholes in it and that's something that we've been discussing as a committee and the issues that you bring up about rough shooting and therefore we're bringing in this legislation around hunting with dogs to be very very clear about what can and cannot be done and in this case I believe that actually licensing will allow people to find ways around actually stopping that hunting. Turning now to amendments in this grouping. I support Christine Grahame's amendment 156 and 1559 to remove the options to grant a licence to a whole category of persons to avoid the issuing of a blanket licence which isn't strictly necessary by everyone who receives it. I also support Christine Grahame's amendment 161 which would require NatureScot to keep a publicly available register of licences as this would increase transparency and accountability. However, I believe that it would be better to achieve the purposes of this bill by removing the licensing scheme altogether. I support Colin Smyth's amendments 116 and 130 which specify that a licence holder must adhere to a set of standards based on ethical principles of human wildlife management. I would like to work with Colin Smyth, Government and other parties before stage 3 to refine this idea and ensure that it is workable in practice. I also support Jim Fairlie's amendments 157 and 160, 172 and 173 which add that any licence must require the use of the minimum number of guns that NatureScot believes would be effective for killing the wild mammal as soon as possible after it is located or flushed. However, I do have some concerns around encouraging greater use of guns in any circumstances so I would be interested in working with Jim Fairlie at stage 3 to add appropriate safeguards to those conditions. Edward Mountain's amendment 105 simply seeks to change the reference to Scottish natural heritage to NatureScot. I will leave it to the minister to advise on whether that is appropriate. As for amendments that I do not support in this section, I cannot support those other amendments in this section. I cannot list them all. The minister's amendment 158 would allow the 14 days for a licence under section 4 to be spread over six consecutive months. I do not support this amendment. If the purpose of the licence is to enable effective wildlife control then spreading out the days when more than two dogs can be used will undermine this purpose, RSPB, know that you need a period of consecutive days or, more importantly, nights when you are trying to protect other animals from foxes, for example. Having one day here and there to hunt foxes with several dogs would not be effective for achieving their purpose. You need to deal with the problem when it arises, not on separate days, spaced out over six months or a year. I move amendments 9 to 12 and 14 to 18, and I urge the committee to support them. I encourage the committee to support Christine Graham, Colin Smyth and Jim Fairlie's amendments in this group. I will wait to decide how to vote on Rachel Hamilton and Edward Mountain's amendments after I have heard from them. I would ask the committee to vote against all other amendments in this group. Rachel Hamilton, to speak to amendment 21 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Amendments 209, 231, 234 seek to clarify that a licence may be granted to individuals, categories of individuals, which suggest some shared characteristic and groups of people, even where they do not necessarily amount to a category. There may be situations in which disparate individuals may need to apply for a licence jointly. As the rain committee heard in evidence, there may be different types of land holding that require fox control across the various holdings if control is to be effective. It is no use granting a licence to a livestock holding that does not cover adjacent land in different ownership without livestock, but with large areas of forestry or cover that act as a reservoir for foxes, which then predate on neighbouring livestock. The bill must allow sufficient scope for Nature Scott to issue licences based on need, whether to individuals, groups or categories of persons. Amendment 205 is a relatively minor amendment that would allow Nature Scott to issue a licence that would cover more than one species. As drafted, the bill states that a licence is for a particular species rather than simply a particular species. The amendment would ensure that the bill does not unnecessarily restrict Nature Scott's ability to issue licences as needed and as practical. Amendment 22 relates to the consideration of alternative methods of predator control. In our evidence to our committee, it was stated that effectiveness is to be understood as relating to whether the alternatives were practical and possible. There needs to be clarity on the face of the bill. That is the case and that there may be alternatives that could be effective but not necessarily practical and affordable. It is important to avoid Nature Scott facing legal challenges to licences issued on the basis that they have failed to meet what amounts to a test where they must be satisfied that there is no alternative that would be effective. What really matters is whether the use of more than two dogs is necessary and whether it will make a significant contribution to the purpose for which a licence is granted. The proposed wording of the amendment would recognise, as the current wording does not, that the use of dogs to flush the guns under licence does not mean that other methods of fox control would not carry alongside licence control using dogs. Indeed, control is normally a combination of methods that complement one another and may be used concurrently. There is a danger of thinking that it is an either or scenario, whereas the reality is that successful fox control involves a variety of methods. Which methods are used and when, where and how and any combination of methods, at any given time, will depend on terrain and other considerations that are best decided by those conducting the control and wildlife management on the ground. Amendment 20623210, 34, 233 and 235, convener, relates to legal duty on NatureScot, which simply cannot discharge. NatureScot could not rashly reach a decision on the minimum number of dogs required for a given task on what evidential basis would a decision to allow, for example, eight dogs but not ten and why eight and not seven or six. Moreover, a person with a licence may be using dogs over a variety of terrain and cover, even on a single land holding. In relatively open country with limited cover, six dogs may be sufficient but a far greater number may be required for a thousand-acre block of forestry, for example. Those amendments would remove the burden and the obvious risk of legal challenge to licence and replace it with a more workable solution. It is proposed that a condition of the licence is that those licenced only use the number of dogs that is appropriate in the circumstances. I think that that is part of the nature of this bill. That could be reinforced by a reporting requirement so that, if required, a person would have to explain and justify their decision as to how many dogs to deploy at a given time and place. Amendments 207, 208 and 24 would extend the period of time in which a 14-day licence could be used from 14 days to 12 months from the date at which the licence was granted. That would allow the licence to be used on the given number of days as part of the continuous process of predator control. It reflects what was accepted by all sides in oral evidence that control is preventative, not simply in response to damage having been suffered. The existing wording fails to recognise the reality that fox control is a year-round activity and that it is conducted using a variety of methods depending on factors such as train and the time of year. Creating a fair and workable licencing regime, as has been described by the minister, is vital if effective fox control is to remain possible across large parts of rural Scotland, and the amendment would help to achieve that. During evidence to our committee, it was noted by several witnesses, including the minister, that it was not possible to specify in the licence the number of guns to be deployed. It is hard to understand how nature Scotland must specify a number of dogs and how it is rational to determine a specific number, but cannot do so with guns. For both the number of dogs and guns, what is appropriate will depend on the circumstances. As with dogs, it should be a requirement that a licensed person should be responsible for ensuring an appropriate number of guns are deployed. That could be reinforced by a reporting requirement so that, if required, a person would have to explain and justify their decision as to how many guns were deployed at a given time and place. Lord Bonomy also was of the opinion that the number of dogs was not a problem or that reducing it to two would change the situation other than to bring the practice of flushing to guns to an end. Instead, he said, that having a sufficient number of guns that was the thing that mattered most and that the number of guns is vital. As I have said, the different way that footpacks went about it did not seem to me to involve a chase. Those are Lord Bonomy's words. Amendment 211 and 236, convener, reflects that there are statutory conditions that apply to all licences, but there may be other additional conditions as well, which are not explicitly required by the legislation, including ones that relate to the statutory conditions themselves. Amendment 25 provides a definition of an approved professional body in the bill for clarification on this point. It also requires ministers to create a code of practice for the purpose of a licensing scheme. A reason behind that is that a definition of an approved professional body alongside a code of practice is required in order for the licensing scheme to function effectively. Licence holders would be expected to adhere to the code and set out what is expected of them. Amendment 232 means that, as would be the case of rough shooting, a licence holder may be able to specify more than one species of wild mammal when making an application. As heard in evidence to the committee from BASC, it would be the case that a licence applicant could be dealing with more than one pest species at a time, but the bill as drafted would not make allowances for that, and that amendment circumvents that issue. Amendment 33 relates to the condition that the relevant authority may not issue a licence unless it is satisfied that the killing, capturing or observing the wild mammal will contribute towards a significant or long-term environmental benefit and that there is no other solution that would be effective in achieving the purpose set out in section 7. In relation to which the application for a licence is being made, this part of the bill is unnecessarily prohibitive. I have already discussed the matter of whether hunting with dogs should be a last resort as this section would require. However, I am proposing an amendment that is less prohibitive while still showing the aims as set out in section 7.2 to be met. As I have already said, using dogs to help control predators and pest species is often the most practical solution and can be used in tandem with other control methods for maximum efficiency. It is less practical to propose, as the bill does, that there should be an all-or-nothing choice between maximum control and inadequate control, depending on the arbitrary conditions. The amendment would allow the right balance to be struck by the licensing scheme. That brings me to the end. Thank you. I am Jim Fairlie to speak to amendment 191 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. As you know, this is an issue that I have been thinking about for some time. I have voiced my concern about the number of guns used during a hunt. From everything that we have heard in the committee, when it comes to actually killing a wild animal in a swift and humane way, the number of guns seems to be a vital part of the process. When I asked Lord Bonomy about this during stage 1 evidence sessions, he responded to Rachael Hamilton and just cited it as well. I think that the number of guns is vital. One of the examples that I gave during the evidence sessions was a person who only has two guns covering 150 yards of forestry. With the best will in the world, the fox will run straight to the middle and not be shot. However, if the number of guns was increased to example 15, it is more likely that the fox will be shot and therefore that loophole of allowing dogs to hunt and kill a fox will be closed. My amendments 171 and 191 amend section 4 and 8 of the licence provisions to give specific examples of the kind of information that NatureScot can ask people to provide on their applications. The number of dogs that they are seeking permission for and the number of guns that they intend to deploy. My amendments 15, 7, 160, 172 and 173 carry on from this by amending both licence and sections so that NatureScot have to require a minimum number of guns to be deployed when issuing a licence and they have to put that number on the licence. That means that NatureScot get to look at the information provided by the applicant and then they are the ones that make the decision on exactly what the minimum number of guns should be. The principle of those amendments has been widely supported by a variety of stakeholders and committee members at stage 1 and by stating on the face of the bill that this information may be required. We will give applicants early notice of the type of information that will be required. I think that those amendments could also assist in filling out some of the detail of the licence and framework, particularly the type of information an applicant may require to include in their applications. I know that Rachel Hamilton agrees with the principle as she has lodged amendment 21 that is very similar to mine. I also amend section 4 to see of the bill to include information that the relevant authority may require. My issue with Rachel Hamilton's amendment and the reason that I have lodged this alternative version is that amendment 21 talks about the number of dogs or guns that would be licenced. I do not think that the wording is right in the fact that the applicant will not know how many dogs or guns would be licenced because that is a matter for the licencing authority to decide. My amendment makes clear that the applicant provides the information and then the licencing authority considers that information and reaches its decision. That might be to grant a licence for the number of dogs and guns that the applicant has stated on the form, or it might be to grant a licence for a different number. My amendment keeps the flexibility for the licence and authority to do just that. I have also included the same requirement for section 8 licences for environmental benefit as for section 4 licences on wildlife management so that the requirements are consistent. It is absolutely right that the licence authority has the final decision-making power for these licences as they do for all other wildlife management licences. However, it is important that we are clear on what we will expect under the licence and regime, which is why I have lodged these amendments and I hope that my members agree and support my amendments. Edward Mountain to speak to amendment 72 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. I am going to talk to my amendments first, if I may, and that is the issue of fees. One of the reasons why I have suggested these amendments are to help the minister. I believe that this could be a contentious area and therefore there will be discussion about fees in the future. Therefore, I believe that rather than the fees be decided for licences by the regulating authority that comes before, on the affirmative procedure so that it can be cleared and it can be seen to be discussed and agreed in advance. I also believe that the minister should be the logical person for an appeal to be made, should the licensing authority choose to deny a licence. That way it is open and transparent and seems to be truly democratic. Amendments 105 and 106, I will listen to the minister's reason why we still need to hear Scottish natural heritage as Scottish natural heritage and not NatureScot. Constant name changes and different uses of names tends to confuse people. It certainly confuses me. As far as the other amendments in the group are, I respect her amendments, our wrecking amendments, and I take them as that. I was very interested to hear Jim Fairlie's reasoned argument regarding the number of dogs and guns that should be specified in the licence. I do have some concerns with that. If you are, in the example that Mr Fairlie used, putting dogs into a wood to flush a fox out, the placement of the guns and number of the guns will be known by the person who is doing that, because foxes will always run on a certain line. That does not always happen when somebody coughs or is upwind of where the animal would be, therefore they might deviate. However, if you have sensible guns, the keeper, the land manager, will know where that fox goes. Of course, Mr Fairlie. The point about having the minimum number of guns is to close the loophole where the hunts, the people who are going out to shoot, foxes to control foxes, say that they had plenty of guns and it just so happened that the fox happened to slip through. That is what created the loophole in the 2002 act in the first place. If there is a requirement by the licensing authority to make sure that there is a equivalent number of guns, the number of hounds that are driving the area, then the likelihood of a fox being shot is far greater than if it is left to the discretion of the people who are trying to circumvent the law in the first place. I very much take the point, but I come at this not to defend those people who are trying to circumvent the law. I am trying to come at this from the angle of the person who will abide by the law. Therefore, I look at this as quite a difficult one to implement, because what will end up is nature scot licensing division sitting on a licence, looking at a licence and saying, oh, they are doing this area, therefore this needs 12 guns and it becomes formulaic. It does not become an actual description. Now, I can see some… Of course I can. Thank you very much. Surely the whole point of this is that we trust and respect the people who are actually doing this job legitimately and therefore the working relationship between nature scot and the people who are carrying out these acts is such that they understand each other, they know the areas that they are working in and therefore they will come to a proper compromise on how the job should be done properly. Of course. I take the intervention in the manner that it was meant. Those who work together obviously succeed better, but it does not always work. It worries me that this will be formulaic. I could, subject to amendment 2, see of working this out that the minimum number of guns and dogs could be specified but subject to restrictions, because what it does worry me, it really does worry me having been in land management for 15 years, that the views of the people on the ground are not necessarily taken into account by licensing authorities or authorities that are responsible for management and it is a problem. So there may be ways of amending this amendment to make it better. I understand the spirit in which it's meant, but I don't actually think that it's one that I would support as it stood at the moment. I'm not entirely sure on Colin Smith's amendment and I looked here more about the code that he once published and I take the Scottish Government's proposal for extending the licence for a set period actually as a benefit. I say that because I disagree with the point that was made by Ariane Burgess about solving a problem within 14 days. You don't solve problems in the countryside in 14 days. What happens is a problem comes to light, you take proactive action and then you may have to continually go back to resolve the problem because you haven't resolved it in the first place. So for example, if a licence was introduced for fox control to allow that to be done, the fox may be pushed into a deep area of wood which it was impossible to get it out of. It may then go and move to an area and then come back to the area where it knew there was an easy meal, which means that that licence should be observed as a licence for a problem area over a time frame rather than a problem area on a specific 14-day timescale. It just doesn't work. I have a slight problem also with Christine Graham's amendment which is amendment 161 and I'd be interested to hear what her amendment suggests because this is in some ways controversial legislation and if people have access to the register, I want to be sure in my mind that that person who has applied for the licence is then not victimised for doing that and their address and their details became known because that has happened in the countryside and it does happen in the countryside and I'd be interested to see what safeguards there would be because some people can take that to the extreme and I'm not sure that I see any safeguards in it. I may have other points convener when those points have been raised by the members. Thank you. Christine Graham to speak to amendment 156 and other amendments in the group. Yes, thank you very much convener. My goodness, what a long day you've had. I'll speak at first to 156 and 159 because they're pretty well done with the same thing and then I'll move on to 161. I have to say at the beginning to Edward and to others that these are probing amendments at this stage. I'm interested to hear what the minister has to say. My amendment here 156 and 159 seeking to delete to a category of persons. I don't quite understand that and I'm sure the minister's going to clarify it for me because everybody around here has been talking about the licence holder. Rachel Hamilton referred to the licence holder, Jim Fairlie, but a category of persons isn't to me a licence holder, it's a category. I don't know what that category means. Does it mean the farmers? Does it mean the gamekeepers? Does it mean the landowners? Don't know. The other thing that I would have to say here is who at the end of the day, if I follow my line that it's gamekeepers or landowners or whatever, is liable for any breach. Who would be brought before court for breaching the terms of the licence? There's no name there. My suggestion, because I can understand that on a large piece of hillside, you might have several farms where exceptions to exceptions requires a licence over an area where there's different persons who own the land. I don't see why it couldn't be maybe granted to a particular person or persons, which might be, let's say, the gamekeepers on three different estates, but at least you'd have a name in the frame. I'm not looking to persecute everybody, I'm just making it easier for enforcement and responsibility. I think I'm getting multiple interventions, as is my won't. Yes, it's up to the convener. It's not a comment, really, to address what Christian Graham was saying, because I completely agree with you and I think that those were the points that I was trying to make in terms of the category of persons in the amendments 204, 209, 231 and 234, and so I too am interested in what the minister has to say in this particular regard, because we agree, Christine. I know this is a wonderful woman for us. I think we should celebrate. I'll get a badge. Sorry, I forgot that you don't have to push the button, I apologise. On the basis that agreement's always good, I wondered if you could clarify whether you believe therefore the licence holder should be present when the activity takes place. So, for example, if the licence holder was the landowner, would he have to be present or the farmer, would he have to be present when the activity took place? I think that some clarity around that would be useful, because in other cases that is the case. Well, I haven't actually thought of that point, but thinking of it now, the answer that I do off the cuff is no. They couldn't possibly be present when the activity took place, but they would delegate to a responsible person to hold the licence as we do, as MSPs to our staff, you know, but the buck would stop eventually with the landowner if it had been the wrong way round. The aim really here is just who, at the end of the day, has the name and the frame for it. It could be one or two people, but I don't know where category comes in. So, I'll move on to my next one before the minister may want to respond. I'll begin to chair this, and I didn't mean to do that. That's important. So, when I come on to 161, this kind of follows on from it, and I heard what you said about victimisation, but there's an element here of how do you know, this is exceptions to exceptions, so how do you know if you're a member of the public or whatever just wondering about, you see something that should be allowed, how do you know it should be allowed, because you don't know that this area has been licenced to do certain pursuits that are not under the general legislation. On the other hand, you might see something that shouldn't be taking place, so I do think there's got to be some responsibility here. You know, yet licences, I'm trying to remember, but are licences not published for, for instance, I'm not sure on publicans that there's a list of licenced publicans or a list of licenced taxi drivers somewhere so that we know if that's in the public domain. I'm pleased that there may be data protection issues here, but there may be ways of dealing with the address, say. Again, I'm probing this to see— Is there a good moment on that phone? Yes. Are we going to agree again? As you know, Christine Grahame, that I have an interest in hospitality business, and comparing licences in that aspect are slightly different to this scenario because it involves individuals being able to take exams, quite stringent exams, to get to the point where they are issued a licence, and so I think to compare those apples and pears is not necessarily fair in this circumstances, whilst people, of course, have to have gun licences and other and be competent to have a gun and et cetera. I think that in this situation it's slightly confusing the situation, whereas in this licensing we need more clarity and a succinctness rather than trying to muddy the waters with other industries that are perhaps slightly different. I dispute that because you've obviously got somebody to get a licence as expertise. They'll have expertise with the gun, expertise with the land, expertise with what is required for the management of that land. In that circumstance, it's not a direct similarity. There's enough in common to say, yes, there should be a register, and this register would allow people to know that this and to feel secure. You turned it on its head and said, victimise, I put it the other way and said, the person who's been granted this exceptional licence is published knows, therefore, that when they're out and about exercising that licence, they're doing so. If any of the public challenges them, they're able to say, well, if you check this, I'm licensed to do this, so I turned it on its head. I'll have to, won't I? No, you don't. The convener could say that you don't have to. But on the basis that the convener hasn't said that, I think my concern would be on the licence that if you had the licence and you stipulated the guns. I'll give you an example, if I may, when seal management was allowed and licensed in Scotland, for example, those people who were able to control seals had to go on a course, had to have it on their firearm certificate, and it had to be listed on the licence when the licence was made. That then resulted in some bailiffs who were authorised, competent and complying with the licence to be victimised afterwards. So I take the member's point about allowing it to be seen and open, that the activity is allowed, but it would be a way of making sure if the minister was tempted to go to that level, to make sure that there was no way that the people taking part of it could be victimised as a result of a legal activity. I am asking for us to keep quite plain stuff. It doesn't get down into the granular level of it. Keep a register of licences granted, including the start and end dates of the licence and the name of the licence holder. That's it. The rest can be done by regulation, but it doesn't get down to the detail of the guns or not, the detail that you have exemplified there. It is my understanding that the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission suggested that we should have that registered. I see security in that for people who have been granted exceptions, because the public will think that this is the law now, but they won't necessarily appreciate those exceptions to exceptions where you can actually have an increase in the activity. Rather than seeing as victimisation, I am repeating myself, is that you see it as something that gives security to the licence holder. I return again and really nothing further to add, convener, because I would like to, if you feel it's appropriate, the minister to perhaps answer some of those. I just want explanations. The minister will be contributing to this when she speaks to her amendment, but it's more of a welcome to intervene if the minister wishes to comment. I'll respond once we've been through them, convener. Thank you. I call Colin Smith to speak to amendment 116 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I support amendments 9 to 12 and 15 to 20 in Arianna Burgess' names, which would remove section 4 from the bill. The bill, as it stands, would allow a continuation of the use of packs of dogs in hunting, albeit under licence. It therefore fails to fully close the loopholes that exist in the current legislation and merely licences them. I'm very clear that you cannot licence cruelty. You can't believe in the one hand that we need to limit the number of dogs to two because that reduces the risk of dogs instinctively chasing and killing, but on the other hand, continue to allow the use of packs of dogs simply because someone has a licence. You don't close one loophole by creating another. I don't agree that those are reckon amendments. In fact, what is reckon is to include a licence in a bill that seeks to end the use of packs of dogs. Are alternative more humane methods available to manage wild mammals? I'll take an intervention on that. Would Colin Smyth like to explain to the committee what other methods he would use in an area of a thousand acres of woodland? It's interesting that Jim Fairlie raises that point when there's no definition within the licence scheme of the example he gives. I think that's one of the weaknesses of the licence scheme. We're not exactly clear when packs of dogs will or will not be allowed to be used. I'll maybe try and finish the first intervention first and let Mr Fairlie come in the second intervention. There are alternative more humane methods available to manage wild mammals and protect environment. Of course, the use of two dogs would continue to be allowed under the bill. If members don't support the amendments to remove licence amendments 116 and 130 in my name would allow NatureScot to require licence applicants to meet standards in the application process, which could be drawn up in line with an ethical framework such as the international consensus principles for ethical wildlife control, which is an existing international example of such standards. The principles would bring significant animal welfare benefits if embedded in Scottish Government and societal practices. They would provide a framework to guide decisions around if, when and how wildlife intervention should take place and would ensure that ethical reasoning is applied, evidence is consulted and animal welfare is prioritised. Perhaps, most importantly, the principles invite a shift in mindset recognising that each animal is sentient and deserves equal consideration, regardless of the category that humans have put them in. That, convener, is a key point. I've heard it argued that we don't need this ethical approach because of the existence of NatureScot's position statement on wildlife welfare and the shared approach to wildlife management. NatureScot will take an invention on that point. If all animals are sentient, how do you justify a fox killing a lamb or several lambs to take a tail or an ear to give the trinkets for cubs? Do we accept the fact that foxes will kill lambs? I don't think that the bill or anybody's proposal that you should not control predatory behaviour from animals doesn't mean that the animal is not sentient. I would have thought that every member in this room would recognise that all animals are living, breathing creatures that feel pain and suffer. I thought that that was a basic thing that any human being would recognise. I've heard it argued, as I said, that this ethical approach is not necessary. We've argued that the NatureScot's position statement on wildlife welfare and the shared approach to wildlife management, which NatureScot currently uses to guide its decision making in this area, would be sufficient. I think that's a bit of a red heron. It seems to me more than an excuse not to support the amendment in my name rather than a credible justification. If you compare, for example, the seven international consensus principles for ethical wildlife control with those two current policies, you'll see that the latter is outdated and simply does not go far enough. I think that the Government itself actually recognises when it comes to, for example, its thinking on up-and-coming changes to deer management. The current policies are very commendable statements of intent, but they are not a proper framework that lends itself to a guide on decision making in any application process. In contrast, the seven principles can easily be converted into seven questions in any licence application process, literally providing a step-by-step protocol to follow when a potential problem is identified and a decision on how to approach it must be made. Crucially, NatureScot's definition of wildlife welfare is outdated. It contains no recognition of sentence, although I think that it would be perfectly logical. In my preference, my amendment doesn't specifically say that the ethical principle should be the international consensus principles for ethical wildlife control. It simply says that ethical principles should be used. I believe that they could be drawn up by NatureScot working with those involved in wildlife management, animal welfare charities and others when developing that licensing scheme. One of the criticisms of the bill as it stands is that there is a lack of real detail over what would guide that licence application process, and this amendment helps to overcome that by setting a clear direction of travel. There is nothing for anyone considering an application under a licensing scheme that follows ethical principles to be concerned, because, quite frankly, if they cannot justify that licence on ethical grounds, they should not have a licence in the first place. Are we encouraged? This morning, we received a letter, albeit a very late letter, regretting to say, minister. I haven't had the opportunity to fully absorb it, but it is with regard to the licensing through NatureScot and what will happen and what NatureScot will do to engage with stakeholders. Within it, it says that NatureScot is committed to a shared wildlife management principle approach to stakeholder engagement. It doesn't sound as though Colin Smyth accepts that NatureScot is committed to the shared wildlife management principles and seems to want to go further. When we all know that this bill is, the intention is to put animal welfare to the highest standards. What is it that Labour members don't appreciate about the shared wildlife management principles? I have outlined the principles specifically. I don't think that the current policy recognises the priority of animal welfare. I don't think that it recognises the sentence of all animals. I think that the Government recognises that that is the case in some areas. For example, if you look at the approach that is taken to deer management or up-and-coming deer management, it is going further than the current policy statements that exist in place. I think that there is a recognition that the current policy statements are outdated and need to be updated. What we are saying is that we are not specifying exactly what those detailed policies should be. We think that the detailed application process should be part of a discussion consultation. We should take an approach of discussing it with all stakeholders, those involved in wildlife management and those involved in animal welfare. However, what we are saying is that, as part of that and as a very small amendment, the direction of travel should be to follow ethical principles in developing that. I would turn the question around and ask any member to look at the seven ethical principles that, as an example, I have given and say which one of them should not guide a process when it comes to an application. I will take an intervention from Edward Mountain. I get confused when we talk about this and we mix up species. At the stage that we are at the moment that we have deer control being carried out by Forestry Land Scotland, SNH is issuing licences to every single region of Forestry Land Scotland, the seven in Scotland, for out-of-season control of deer, which means that you are shooting females with dependent young without necessarily ensuring that the dependent young are being controlled. It seems that you are mixing the two up and that gives me clear concerns that you are looking for a stronger licencing procedure on this, whereas you are then going to promote shooting deer with fawns at foot without killing the fawns. I have a problem with that and I wonder if you could justify that to me. I am not going to confuse the two because we are dealing specifically with the bill. My reference was to the fact that the Government recognises and it is up and coming changes, proposed changes in deer management that they need to go beyond existing policy. I have probably covered all the points. One of the criticisms of the bill is that there is a lack of detail. I think that that sets a direction of travel for those discussions on that lack of detail. It has been very clear that the amendment is quite tight. It does not specify all seven of those principles. That is one example that could be incorporated, but it does set a direction of travel. The ethical principle should direct any licencing application process. I would be happy to work with any member on the practicalities of that if the amendment is not carried. I urge members at this stage, first of all, to support amendments to remove the licensing scheme from the bill. Failing that, I urge them to support amendments to include the ethical principles of wildlife management to ensure that the licensing scheme is as robust as possible. I invite the minister to speak to amendment 58 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I hope that you will bear with me. This is a large group, but I want to give the Government's due attention to each of the member's amendments. If I can, I would like to follow some of the chronology that we have had already today, and I start with amendments 9 to 12 and 15 to 20 in the name of Ariane Burgess. Those amendments, as we know, would remove the licensing scheme altogether. I would say from the Government's perspective that we have always sought to balance our aim of promoting the highest standards of animal welfare. With the reality, as I have said, that in this rural country, access to legitimate control of wild mammals is required in certain circumstances. We know that if farmers are not able to protect their stock, they will lose lambs, poultry and others. That, of course, is not just an economic loss to hard-pressed farms, but it is also very distressing emotionally to see livestock under their care being killed. We know that control can be difficult to carry out in rocky terrain, on hillground or densely vegetated areas. We know that lamping, for example, may not be possible and that two dogs on their own may not be able to flush to waiting guns. Of course, that was expressly recognised by Lord Bonomy with very specific comments on terrain, which I am not prepared to ignore. With all that being the case, I am clear that the licensing scheme is an exception to an exception. It must be available where it is essential, but it must also be tightly regulated and controlled. The use of two dogs will be for specified purposes only, where there is no other effective solution, where a maximum number of dogs are specified and for a time-limited period, and it will always be illegal to allow any number of dogs to chase and kill a fox. For those reasons, I do not support Ariane Burgess' amendment. Amendment 21, in Rachel Hamilton's name, I think that Jim Fairlie clearly set out the reasons why he is not supporting this amendment. I think that that is principally because the decision should lie with the licensing authority and not with the applicant. I agree with his reasoning and do not support the amendments for that reason. I think that Jim Fairlie's formulation addresses the issues that he identified and does that within amendments 191 and 171. I support those amendments to add specific examples of the information that the licensing authority may require. I think that there are useful additions in the name of high welfare standards. It was really just to get some clarification on your comments there about who is best to decide what is best for the situation on the ground in terms of the terrain and the understanding of the topography, etc. Are you confident—I know that you have explained this in the past—that you are confident that NatureScot has the ability to do that? I am looking at the letter that you sent to the committee this morning. I note that there is the intention to have workshops with stakeholders so that they can raise questions. Are you confident that, if my amendment is not accepted, NatureScot will get a better understanding of what is required in terms of the nature of the topography and terrain that I describe? Is that the intention of that? Yes. I already have great confidence in not just NatureScot and its expertise, but, as Jim Fairlie pointed out, the good relationship that already exists at a very local level between NatureScot representatives and the people who they work with in various ways. I think that that will only be improved. As I say, I am committed to continued consultation with those who would seek to use this section and NatureScot art as well. The point, though, is more of a technical one as regards the difference between the amendments. That is ultimately that we cannot say that it is for the applicant to decide on the number of guns. It always must technically be for the licensing authority to make that judgment in all the circumstances. That is them fulfilling their duty. However, I have every confidence that there is a good relationship and that there will be a good understanding of what is required. Of course, the indication that the applicants can give on what they think would be the correct number of guns will be useful in that regard, but ultimately the decision must lie with the licensing authority. We can move on to amendment 72, 103 and 107, in Edward Mountain's name, adding the new section and amending section so that NatureScot could not implement a fee. The provisions that are already in this bill around the potential for NatureScot to charge a fee are similar to those that we have in other legislation where NatureScot operates a licensing scheme, for example, in the 1981 act, the Wildlife and Countryside Act and the 1994 conservation regulations. I do not see a reason why we would differ in our approach under this bill. The Scottish Government has committed to reviewing the approach to charging for licensing generally in the near future. I do not think that it would be corrected to pursue differences in this particular scheme, particularly when that review in the generality is coming down the track shortly. For those reasons, I do not support the amendments. Will you give way for a moment? I shall, of course. Thank you. Are you going to talk to the other parts of the amendments regarding the appeal procedure on licensing and whether the minister will be the ultimate arbiter on it? I apologise for emitting that convener that slipped my mind, but I do not support that part of it either. There are already well-established review processes inherent in NatureScot's operations. I think that they are the ones best placed to take the view, not the Scottish ministers, who are coming from my conversation with Rachel Hamilton about expertise in this. That lies with NatureScot, not with me. I will give way on that point. My concern is that SNH then becomes judge, jury and ultimate appeal judge on it, which is contrary to common law and would be against the procedure where somebody else could review the licence. If the minister is not able to give an assurance that her or the future minister will do it, will she appoint a appeal procedure to allow people to go through? I am more than happy to keep talking to you about this, but my view today, and the reason why I do not support this as it is formulated, is that there are review procedures already very much built into the processes. Yes, within NatureScot, but ultimately I would expect judicial review, although I am looking to my legal colleagues on that. There are review processes right up to judicial review that are available, and I do not think that bringing those issues in-house within the Scottish Government is helpful. I hope that that clarifies the point. Amendment 156 and 159, from my colleague Christine Grahame, removing the ability of NatureScot to licence the category of persons. I very much understand the intention of being to tighten up the way that those licences can be granted. However, and it is something that we have discussed a lot this morning, I do not want to create inconsistencies with the wording of the bill, which that could do, because the approach that we have set out is as set out in the 1981 Wild Life and Countryside Act. I am going to try to cover each of the points in town, but on the point about person and what that means and what it can be taken to mean, the law already states that the word person would include bodies such as a company or a club. Those types of bodies could be granted a licence even if the bill were amended to only include person. I understand that. Where are the legal entities? Company, club, partnership, legal entities, but category is not a legal entity. I was just going to come on to the point about categories, because the other reason why that is important is because excluding a category would prevent the situation where a series of neighbouring farmers, perhaps with hill ground stretching between them, which is exactly what Lord Bonomy said with the terrain that this would be required in, would not be able to do, as we have discussed with them, being able to do, i.e. apply for a licence that does not run with the individual, it runs with the terrain over that area of land. Yes, absolutely. How would that category be described in the licence? Would it be the farmers of XYZ farms? Would that be what it would be? In those circumstances, well, first of all, is that the case? It runs with the land, it does not run with the individuals, so that Nature Scott will receive an application. For an area of land, it will consider the terrain being one of the main considerations and will determine whether it is suitable to grant a licence over that land. On the point about who is liable in the case of a breach of conditions, because I think that that is an important point, that will always be the people, person, people who are undertaking the activity. Under section 1.4 of the bill, those who are undertaking the activity because of section 1.4 will be everyone who is involved, not just those who are controlling the dog. For applications or categories of persons, those liable would still be the people undertaking the activity. Likewise, for a farmer, if they had applied for an agency to undertake the work, it would be in the first instance that the agency, the folks on the ground who were undertaking the activity, who would be liable for any breach of licence conditions. However, I would add to that that there are, of course, ancillary provisions in the bill that might catch the farmer in those circumstances if they had knowingly permitted illegal activity to take place on their land. I am going to have to ponder this for stage 3, because I am not quite satisfied about the explanation, but it may be perfectly right. I just need to tease it out and read the detail. I think so, because my understanding is that the licence goes to a person or category as it stands. Therefore, if the licence is breached, surely it is the licence holder that is liable, notwithstanding another party is undertaking the actual physical control. It is the licence holder at the end of the day that says, right, I am getting the licence for this, I am responsible for what happens under this licence of mine. What I just explained is that that is not the case, that it is the individuals who are responsible for the breach of conditions on the ground who would be responsible. Who knows where, it could be anybody then, it could be somebody who has not even anything to do with the landowner. That might be the case in certain circumstances, but it would be for... I will leave it at that. I am going to have a big think about this again, because I am not sure. Are you continuing or have you completed? I have completed that section, but I am more than happy to keep talking to Christine Grahame about it to try and clarify her points. If I can, I will move on, because I am conscious of time. Amendments 204, 209, 231 and 234, Rachel Hamilton's amendment in setting the word group into section 4. I do not think that those are necessary. I do not think that they add perhaps what Rachel Hamilton was hoping that they would. As I have said, person is not limited to individuals and under interpretation legislation it includes bodies such as clubs, companies or partnerships. Of course, as we have discussed already today, the singular includes the plural unless the context requires otherwise. It is already possible to grant a licence to more than one person if they meet the requirements. I would ask therefore that amendment is not pressed. 205 and 232 in the name of Rachel Hamilton. Again, I am not entirely clear what those amendments are seeking to achieve, but I do think that they could create inaccuracies in the bill. Subsection 4b and 45b work together where the former sets out what a licence can or must do and the latter sets out what must be specified on the face of the licence. The amendments proposed would break that relationship and I think that that would cause confusion. However, I am admitting that I am not entirely clear what the intention is here and if Rachel Hamilton wants to work with me to clarify that, I am more than happy to do so. I want to come back to the minister to have a look at that particular amendment. Can I just clarify that last minute? I was following what you were saying on the groupings on 205. The last one that you were mentioning there was 205 and 232. I will move on to Rachel Hamilton's amendment 22, which seeks to change one of the tests to grant a licence from no other solution would be effective to no other solutions would be practical. I have considered that very closely. To simply substitute practical for effective could significantly weaken a key licensing test, so I cannot support that today. However, I do accept that there are situations in which a solution would be effective in preventing predation taking place, but might not be practical to achieve. For example, building and maintaining a high foxproof fence around a large field might be effective in keeping foxes out, but there is a question mark over whether that would be practical for achieving by the farmers who would be involved. It could be argued on the other hand that, for a solution to be considered effective, it is implied that it would be practical. However, I would like to give some further thought to that and, if necessary, to come back with a proposed amendment at stage 3 to cover those points. Amendments 206 to 10, 233 and 235 in Rachel Hamilton's name, allowing a licence authority any number of dogs rather than the minimum number that would be effective. I do not support those amendments. The requirement for the licensing authority to specify the maximum number of dogs to be used is an important safeguard to maintain the tightly construed licensing scheme that we want to see. I think that we would risk creating look-poles in any other way in that that must be avoided. So the minimum number being specified by the licensing authority is consistent with our approach of ensuring that we use no more than two dogs only when there is no other effective solution. Amendments 23 and 34, again in Rachel Hamilton's name, I think that those were earlier alternative amendments 206 to 10, 233 and 235, which adjust the wording to the test but do not delete it altogether. However, I repeat that the requirement for licensing authority to specify the maximum number of dogs to be used is, in our view, an important safeguard that we will seek to maintain so that we cannot support them. Amendments 157, 160, 172 and 173 in Jim Fairlie's name, I support those amendments for all of the reasons that have been stipulated and for the sake of time, if Jim Fairlie does not mind, I will move on. Amendments 116 and 130 in Colin Smyth's name. Amendments to sections 4 and 8, proposing applications for a licence to use more than two dogs, be subject to adherence to the set of standards. There was some discussion about that. I am sympathetic to the intention behind those amendments and I listen very closely to what Colin Smyth had to say. I know that NatureScot has looked closely at the international ethical principles of wildlife management and to examine how they compare to their own shared approach, which again there was discussion about. I do have confidence in the shared approach, not least because it was discussed and developed over a long period of time and brought a range of quite diverse stakeholders together around points that they could coalesce on. However, the main point that I want to make to Colin Smyth today is that the Scottish Government is shortly to commission a review of licensed wildlife management, which will look at welfare aspects and may recommend changes across the board. As previously discussed on fees, I am reluctant to make changes on a particular category here when there is a larger piece of work coming down the track, which will look at the issue on the whole. For that reason, I cannot support those amendments today. Amendment 207, 208, 24 and 25 by Rachel Hamilton. I am not persuaded by those amendments. I think that a year is too long for the validity of a particular licence, bearing in mind the need to maintain that tight control. Actually, I think that the deletion of maximum in 207 and 208 would appear to remove the licensing authority's ability to licence fewer than 14 dogs. I think that it would require them to licence 14 dogs—sorry, 14 days, which we could not support. Sorry, I am getting confused now. I cannot support those amendments either. Having said that, I am aware that there is concern about the time period over which the 14 days could be used. I have listened very carefully to the discussions on the licensing period for section 3 and evidence that you heard. I remain of the view that the 14 days is the correct maximum number for the licence to cover. I am persuaded, however, that there could be some more flexibility over the period in which those 14 days could be used. I am proposing 14 days to be used in the period of six months. Again, that does not allow any more days of activity, but it allows for flexibility to deal with things such as change of plans, bad weather or unforeseen events. Amendments 211 and 236, in Rachel Hamilton's name, they insert the word other into provisions in section 4 and 8, licensing respectively, so that where they say licences must specify any conditions to which the licence is subject, that is changed to any other conditions. I understand the intention, but I think that it is incorrect. I think that it confuses what those subsections are. They are not conditions, they are the information that must be specified in the licence, so I think that that this would not work. I would ask Rachel Hamilton not to press it. Coming now to Christine Grahame's amendment 161, and the point about the publication of a register of licences under section 4. I am sympathetic to that. I think that transparency in the way that licences operate is always desirable, and I know that NatureScot already very successfully shared a lot of information on wildlife management licences, not least as has been seen very recently, detailed reporting on the operation of licences to manage beavers, so there is a precedent there. There are also plans to publish data on all of NatureScot's licences, but we need to work very carefully through the GDPR legislation in order to do this in a way that is legally watertight and does not undermine GDPR. With that being the case and having listened to the exchanges, I will continue to consider Christine Grahame's points, and I want to assure her today that I will commit to her to go as far as possible within the remit of GDPR to publicise what it is that she is asking for. I couldn't commit to it today to being a public register. I have to consider what can be published within the remit of GDPR. Is that another little meeting that we could perhaps have? Perhaps the same meeting to save time. The same meeting, right. I'm diary that. That's good. Okay, thank you. Convener, thank you for bearing with me. I'll try and proceed as quickly as I can. Amendment 33 in Rachael Hamilton's name, removing the tests for the relevant authority to grant a licence being that they would have to contribute towards a significant or long-term environmental benefit and that no other solution would be effective. The effect of the amendment would be to remove two key tests to be met before granting licences under section 8, the need for the activity to contribute to long-term environmental benefit and for there to be no other effective solution. The no other effective solution test is the foundation of the licensing scheme that we are proposing. It is designed to ensure that the use of more than two dogs is kept to an absolute minimum and only used where absolutely necessary. Likewise, the long-term environmental benefit test is important in this section, given that licences could be granted for up to a period of two years, so we need to remain strict on how it operates. Without those two tests, it's hard to see what criteria NatureScot would apply before deciding, and I think that it would loosen a great deal of what we're trying to achieve under this section. Yes, of course. Obviously, the workshops will be in the future and possibly after the passage of this bill. I'm not quite sure of the timetable that you might have suggested within the letter. However, what would happen retrospectively if, for example, there was a stakeholder engagement session and there was a discussion about what you've just discussed with a 14-day licence within the six-month period and a two-year licence that currently exists for environmental benefit. What if the stakeholders and NatureScot had decided at this point, because obviously this is new reform of legislation, that there was something that was in the middle of achieving environmental benefit, but neither of those parameters were suitable? How does that happen? How does that then become affected in law if we'd already gone past this point? Thank you for the intervention. If I understand you correctly, my response would be that the consultation has been happening from the very beginning, and it has gotten us to the point where the bill is as it's published and it has taken us through the scrutiny period in the Scottish Parliament, so it's not as though consultation… The licensing scheme hasn't… Well, it has, because the framework of it is there in the bill. We've said that from the beginning that the bill, on the face of the bill, will set out the fundamental parts of the licensing scheme and that will be supplemented by guidance. However, consultation has informed what's there on the face of the bill, just as consultation will inform what is included in the guidance, so it wouldn't be correct to suggest that stakeholders' views and the aftermath of the bill would be problematic because we wouldn't be able to undo what had been done before. They have been part of that right from the very beginning and have shaped much of what we have in front of us here, just as it will shape much of what's in front of us with the guidance. I have two more sections to address. First, amendment 104 from Edward Mountain, inserting additional section requiring NatureScot to either grant or refuse a licence on receipt of a licence application and, of course, allowing Scottish ministers the ability to decide if a licence has been unreasonably refused. I think that we did touch on that earlier, so, if you don't mind, I'll not deal with it again. I move swiftly on to amendments 105 and 106. The point from Edward Mountain about replacing the reference to SNH with NatureScot is not required because Scottish national natural heritage remains the correct legal name and that set out in the 1991 act and should be used in this context. I know that Edward Mountain referred to constant changing of names, but I think that one in 20 odd years is not bad. Still confusing, minister. Thanks, convener. You've spent consistency in the bill and you can't have the tape. Mr Mountain, any other members wish to speak? Mercedes Vallalba. Very briefly, thank you, Carina. Just to say that I do have some reservations regarding amendments 157, 160, 172 and 173 in the name of Jim Fairlie, which require the licensing authority to specify the minimum number of guns required. While that may well increase the likelihood of a clean shot of a wild mammal, I'm concerned that it could also increase the risk to humans and other animals, and I wouldn't want to set a precedent for legislation to mandate a minimum number of guns in any context. Any other members could ask Aran Burgess to wind up and press or withdraw, please. Thank you, convener. I'd like to thank the minister and other members for lodging amendments in this group, and I appreciated hearing their perspectives to clarify that my amendments are not wrecking amendments but rather intended to legislate for the highest possible standard of animal welfare in a modern Scotland. I agree with Christine Graham's comments about a public register of licence holders. The intention would not be to victimise them but to ensure accountability and responsibility. A public register of licence holders was one of the recommendations in Alison Johnson's MSP's member's bill, consultation last session on protecting Scotland's wild mammals, and I fully support that. The minister raised the needs of farmers to protect their livestock. I fully understand and sympathise with farmers' needs to minimise the loss of lambs and other livestock, but the bill will not prevent farmers from taking action to control animals who are predating on their livestock or crops. It even allows lethal control, but it puts humane conditions on how this is done to ensure the least suffering by the smallest number of animals. I agree with Colin Smyth that we need to rethink the default assumption that killing wild animals is the best way to protect livestock, and I welcome his comments about the ethical principles. If the licence scheme are to be retained in the bill, I fully support the idea of aligning the licence conditions as closely as possible with best practice of ethical wildlife management, such as the international consensus principles of ethical wildlife control or RSPB's vertebrate control policy. However, Colin Smyth's amendments 116 and 130, as drafted, are not specific enough. They refer to a set of standards based on ethical principles. The committee heard NatureScot try to reassure us that their shared approach to wildlife management is already fairly well aligned with the ethical principles, so they could simply require licence holders to align with their existing approach. NatureScot's shared approach is supported by pro-hunting organisations, including the British Association of Shooting and Conservation, the Scottish Country Outside Alliance, Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust Scotland and Scottish Land and in States. That implies that the shared approach would perpetuate the status quo rather than encouraging behaviour, change and increasing protection for wildlife. I will support Colin Smyth's amendments at this stage, but I would like to work with him, Government and other parties before stage 3 to amend this section further to require closer alignment with the actual best practice in ethical wildlife control, while ensuring that this requirement is workable in practice and can align with the outcome of the species licensing review, as the minister has mentioned, and I move amendment 9. The question is that amendment 9 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed, there will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise their hand now. Those members abstaining. Can we just check on that? The members not supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. That is too far, seven against, the amendment has not been agreed. That brings us to the end of consideration of stage 2 today. We will, at the next meeting, consider the remaining stage 2 amendments to the Hunde with Dogs Bill, consider anffirmative SSI on poultry meat, a negative instrument and consider further our work programme paper. I now formally close this meeting.