 Welcome, everyone, and welcome to the 34th meeting of the Rain Committee in 2022. Can I remind those members using electronic devices to switch them to silent? Our first item of business today is to take evidence and common organisation of the markets in agricultural products. Policy Meet MissLaughter Ag outdoors Templary amendments Scotland Regulation 2022. This instrument is subject to the affirmative procedure. perthygiadu yn ystod o'r cymdeithas hon olafentol, i ddod, yn ei hunach, o'r ddysgwr, a'i ddod i'r ddod o'r cymdeithas hon o'r ddysgwr. Felly, gweld i'r ddod. Felly, rysgwr ar y cymdeithas cymdeithas a'u ddod i'r ddod i gael yr anod, wrth i ddod ar y cymdeithas, dyma o'r cymdeithas yng nghymnyngig a'u ddod i'r anod eich cymdeithas, popeth i middlu i'r tympreroriaid yma, i gael Ysgolledd Ysgolledd, 2022. The instrument allows the marketing of certain poultry meat in defrosted conditions for the temporary period of the 28 November to the 31 December, inclusive. Regulation 1308-2013, the single CMO regulation makes provision about poultry meat marketing standards and in particular it stipulates that poultry meat and poultry meat preparations shall only be marketed in fresh frozen or quick frozen conditions The Poultry Meat Scotland regulations 2011 schedule 1 part 1 provide that contravention of this requirement is an offence. Due to the current threat from avian influenza, some retailers, as well as all the larger turkey processors, who together account for around 90 per cent of poultry meat production, contacted DEFRA to request temporary approval for poultry meat to be frozen and then sold as a defrosted product. The UK and Welsh governments have indicated that this will be permitted during the period from 28 November to 31 December, and the Scottish Government sought the views of the Scottish industry, and we wish to address the threat of market disturbance to the poultry meat sector by permitting this in Scotland too. This instrument therefore temporarily amends the single CMO regulation and the poultry meat Scotland regulations 2011 to allow certain poultry meat to be marketed as defrosted. In Scotland, this will not only safeguard the domestic supply, but it will also be of assistance to the industry in mitigating potential loss of income due to any large AI outbreak. It is important to note, though, that this does not present a food safety risk and that, under the food information to consumers regulations, any defrosted poultry meat must comply with the labelling regulations, which require that the name of the food shall be accompanied by the designation defrosted on the label. Of course, marketing of poultry meat as defrosted is not something that is mandatory, as poultry meat can still be marketed as fresh frozen or quick frozen during this period. It does, however, give industry the option to sell defrosted poultry meat if they so wish. A full public consultation has not taken place, but that has been due to the urgency of temporarily amending this legislation. However, we did contact industry to inform them about the proposal to be taken forward, and we also invited comments on that, too. We received one positive comment back and had no negative comments. We have also leased with Food Standards Scotland, who have informed enforcement authorities on behalf of Scottish Government. I hope that all of the information that I have provided to the committee this morning is helpful in setting out the rationale as to why we have brought this forward, and with that, I am happy to take any questions that the committee might have. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I am going to kick off. Can you give us an indication of what the take-up has been like, given that this has been in place since 28 November? Have you any idea of how many birds have been in frozen this way until later to be defrosted for supermarket shelves? Have we talked to our officials if we have any up-to-date information on that at the moment? We do not have up-to-date information, but we can come back to the committee about that. That will be helpful. Minister, you have indicated the market scenario that you are seeking to regulate. Are you likely to amend legislation on a more permanent basis in the future? We are not looking to do that at the moment. We are just intending it to be for this period of time, given the nature of the outbreaks that we have seen. Just to put that in context, at this time last year, we have not seen any cases, so I think that this is a very particular circumstance. It is something that we would, of course, potentially look at in the future, but given the urgency of the situation and, again, to prevent that market disturbance, that is why we have set it out for this period of time. Just a very quick question. What happens to defrosted turkeys if there are still defrosted turkeys on the supermarket shelves on 31 December? They would not be able to be sold past that point, because that is what we have set out in the regulation, so they can only be sold until 31 December. I understand that this is a deviation away from EU legislation. I am just wondering what the thinking is in the EU, that why they do not allow meat to be sell that sold as defrosted? I just want to get your assurance that you have thought through all of that. Yes, absolutely. Obviously, what we are bringing forward is only for a short period of time, and I think that we have to take decisions ultimately that are within the best interests of industry and producers in Scotland, which is why we have done this, and it obviously is in line with what is happening across GB at the moment. As far as I am aware, you are right that the EU is not introducing similar regulations, but we know that AI does not impact us here in Scotland or in the UK. It does, of course, impact in other countries, too. I believe that there were trade reasons previously why defrosted meat was not permitted to be sold in that way, but I do not know if officials have any other information as to why we have set out in the regulation that they are at the moment. At the moment, we know that there was an influx of imported frozen poultry meat, which was then sold as defrosted. Again, it was a trade decision that should not be allowed any more. That is the information that we have. Just sprung to mind when you said that they would not be able to be sold beyond 31 December. Who will monitor what will happen to those birds that are being defrosted and then cannot be sold? Presumably, they will have various options. They can either mince them down, put them into burgers and sell them that way, or sell it as a cooked product. What happens if there is a surplus that is going to have to be effectively dumped? Who is going to monitor that? In terms of the enforcement of it, you can see what has happened across the rest of GB, where they have just asked that local authority enforcement do not enforce the regulations as they are, whereas we have changed the legislation here. I think that we would just be enforcing the normal way in terms of our own enforcement. It is just a very practical point on food safety. If the consumer does not understand that it has been frozen and then defrosted, is there any extra care taken by food standards to make sure that they do not refreeze them? That is why we have had those discussions with Food Standards Scotland and, obviously, to make sure that there would not be any public health risk associated with that. Generally, the advice would be to follow what is on the labels, and that is why the labelling element of it is so critically important in making that clear, and that would definitely be the advice to prepare in line with what is set out on the labels. The commercial freezing and defrosting is a different process to what you would do at home, but it is important that people follow those label and instructions. Generally, it would be the case that, if it had been defrosted, you would be recommending that the product is stored and chilled before being prepared rather than being refrozen again, but the advice is to follow the instructions that are on the label, and that is why showing that it is defrosted and showing that clearly is really important. Just a couple of final questions. I presume that if those birds are frozen, the supermarkets or the retailers can decide when to defrost them, so they will be able to manage what goes on to the supermarkets shelves. What is the time limit for those birds to remain frozen before they can then be sold as defrosted? Does the legislation stop at some point around about Christmas, or can they actually put those birds on the shelves in February, March and April as defrosted? No, they are only being sold as defrosted, so they are being sold as defrosted. A option would be for potentially more birds to be frozen, but we have taken this decision and gone ahead with this because retailers cannot actually stop more frozen products, so they are already selling them as defrosted, if that makes sense. Do you think that there will be an increase in the number of birds that are frozen and then sold as frozen? That is still an option that is open, but that is why we are adding this additional option that they can be sold as defrosted, so that it does not impact on retailers and their ability to store and then sell those products. Thank you, that is very useful. Is this the first time that policy has been brought in, or have there been examples of that happening in the past? As far as I am aware, this is the first time that we have brought those regulations forward, but I do not know if officials are nodding, so I believe that this is the first time that we have done that. Given the nature of AI and what we have seen this year, it is unprecedented. We have never seen an outbreak like it, so that is why we have had to bring this forward and we have these unique circumstances. I was interested in the convener's question about what point are they being defrosted? Is it the producer that is defrosting them and then they get passed on to the retailer, or do they remain frozen at any point with the retailer and then the retailer defrost them for the shelves? The producers would not, once the turkeys are being processed, it is over to retailers, so it will be at the discretion of retailers as to when they see fit for these to be defrosted and commercialised as such. But they would need to be defrosted for sale prior to the deadline of, did you say? Absolutely, yes. So that would be a decision sitting with retailers. And if they were seeing that they weren't selling and so they still had a lot in stock, will there be any option, like the convener suggested, to hold those back to put to the shelves in the new year or that they will literally just have to be signed off as waste? They cannot be commercialised as defrosted so far as the turkeys will not be able to be commercialised as defrosted after the 31st of December, so from the 1st of January next year. But they can still be kept frozen and sold as frozen, that is still an option. Will you be keeping it under review in terms of the commercialisation as defrosted? Is that under review or is that a hard cut off and that won't be looked at again? What do you mean in terms of potentially extending that or bringing it forward? We would obviously want to see what impact that is had. So, yes, we would be monitoring that and to see after the 31st of December how that has worked and if it has had that impact. Okay, thank you. We now move to agenda item 2, which is the formal consideration of the motion to approve the instrument. I invite Ms Gougeon to move motion S6M-06961. Formally moved. Thank you. Does any member wish to debate the motion? No. Is the committee content to recommend approval of the instrument? Finally, is the committee content to delegate authority to me to sign off a report on our deliberations on this affirmative SSI? Thank you. That completes consideration of the affirmative instrument and I thank the cabinet secretary and our officials for attending today. Thank you. Our next item is consideration of the seed equivalence of countries, amendment Scotland regulation 2022. This instrument is subject to the negative procedure. Does any member have any comment on this instrument? We are just going to suspend for a couple of minutes to allow the next witnesses to take their seats. Our next item of business this morning is continuation of our consideration of the Hunting with Dogs Scotland Bill at stage 2. I welcome back Maria McAllen, Minister for Environment and Land Reform and our supporting officials. I also welcome back Colin Smith and Edward Mountain, and I just inform everybody that Beatrice Wishart will be joining us remotely. I now call amendment 69 in the name of Edward Mountain, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. I remind members of the pre-emptions in this group. Edward Mountain, to move amendment 69 and speak to all amendments in this group. Thank you, convener, and before I make any comments, I'd like to remind the committee of my declarations of interest, whereas I'm part of a family farming business and managed land. So thank you, convener. I will move amendment 69 and the subsequent amendments. All my amendments are in a group and all relate to the same part of the bill. That is to change the wording to say that the aim of shooting the wild mammal dead. You cannot, as it suggests in the bill, always shoot the wild mammal dead. The aim must be to do it. I think that that meets the minister's requirement that it is not going to then be wounded and then subsequently chased, which I believe would be her fear. So my aim is just to make it clear that the intention of the gun is to shoot it dead. And I just do say that it is always the intention of person with a gun to shoot the quarry dead, but it's not always possible to achieve that. The rest of the amendments in the group relate partly to Rachel Hamilton's amendments, which I am supportive of. Colin Smyth's amendment, which relates to ffalknery, which I have already made sufficient comments on in previous sessions, so I don't propose to rerun my comments. I should make some comments at the end, if appropriate. Beatrice Wishart, the deputy convener's amendments, they seem sensible, but I would like to listen to what they say before passing comment on it. I will leave my comments at that, convener. Thank you. Colin Smyth, to speak to amendment 114 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Amendments 114, 120, 125 and 128. In my name, we remove the use of a bird of prey as a method of killing. This is neither a humane or efficient method of killing. There is, therefore, no justification for it being a permitted method. It's written evidence to the committee, the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, stated that they, and I quote, are not aware of any evidence that killing by a bird of prey is more humane than killing by a dog and would certainly doubt that it could be more humane than competent shooting. It's clear that this exception is not in line with the intentions of the bill, and I would urge members to support my amendments to remove the inhumane practice of using a bird of prey as a method of killing wild animals. The only argument that I've heard against this is the fact that it is currently legal. That's a pretty lame argument. Amendments 115, 121, 126 and 129 would specify that dogs are not used to killing injured wild mammal. That is in keeping with a key purpose of the bill and would ensure more humane methods are used to kill a winded animal and avoid this scenario being used as a cover story. I urge members to support my amendments to ensure that emerging mammals are killed as humanely as possible and that there are no loopholes in the bill that would allow people to continue to use dogs to kill wild mammals. Rachael Hamilton, to speak to amendment 140 and other amendments in this group. Thank you, convener. Amendments in this group aim to address the potential problem in the existing wording, which leaves it unclear as to what amounts to taking reasonable steps to use the method that causes the minimal possible suffering. As drafted, it could be argued that the only way that causes the minimal possible suffering can be deployed, regardless of the circumstances. It needs to be made clear that causing the minimal possible suffering in the context in which the person is operating constitutes taking reasonable steps. The expression as humanely as possible is widely used in wildlife and welfare legislation and understood by the courts. Alternatively, the addition of in the circumstances makes clear that what is the method of minimum suffering will vary depending on the circumstances, even if there could be a method which could objectively be said to cause less suffering but was not possible in the circumstances. It also avoids the argument as to which method is in fact the one that causes the minimum suffering possible. Clearly, a sooner and injured animal is dispatched the better, but would a person who dispatches immediately using a knife be using the method causing the minimal possible suffering, or would they have had to take reasonable steps to obtain a firearm if this could be argued to be a method that caused less suffering? It may be argued that the existing wording could be construed as recognising that the way of killing an injured animal that causes minimum suffering is relative to circumstances and what is possible, but for the avoidance of doubt the bill would benefit from an amendment to give a greater degree of certainty to those operating under the legislation and to avoid any vexatious allegations. Amendment 36, 37, 38 and 39 would allow the person using the dogs to exercise their judgment over how many dogs would be appropriate to cause the minimum possible suffering as they would be best positioned to make this judgment. Those amendments aim to alleviate suffering for animals, as many others we have heard today have aimed to do, and I would urge members to vote for those with that in mind. Any other member's wish to speak to those amendments? Ariane Burgess. I would like to speak in support of Colin Smith's amendments 114, 120, 125 and 128, which, as he says, removes bird of prey as an accepted method of killing a wild mammal under section 356 and 7. The committee heard evidence, for example, from the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, that killing a wild mammal with a bird of prey is neither a humane nor an efficient method of killing. I do not believe that there is any justification for it being permitted, a permitted method of killing under section 35 and 7, when other more humane and effective methods are available. I understand that the Government does not wish to ban falconry by the backdoor, but amendments 114, 120 and 128 would not do that. They would simply remove the option to use a bird of prey to kill a wild mammal for other purposes for wildlife control or environmental benefit. I would urge members to vote for Colin Smith's amendments. I am afraid that I cannot support amendments 69 to 71 nor 97 to 99 in the name of Edwin Mountain nor amendments 36 to 39 in the name of Rachel Hamilton as they allow the use of any number of dogs. I will support amendments 114, 120, 125 and 128 in the name of Colin Smith, which remove the exception for killing by bird of prey. As I am not aware of any evidence that this method of killing is humane or efficient, I will also support amendments 115, 121, 126 and 129 in the name of Colin Smith as they ensure more humane methods are used to kill a wounded animal and avoid creating a loophole. I cannot support the remaining amendments in the name of Rachel Hamilton as they seem to prioritise human convenience over animal welfare. Thank you very much, convener, and good morning, everyone. I will begin with Edward Mountain's amendments that he led with and then move on to the others. Amendment 70 and 98 in Mr Mountain's name. The effect of those amendments is that a person would only have to intend to kill the wild mammal after flushing it from cover. I believe that that could create another loophole that could allow a person to prolong the hunting of a wild mammal as long as they intend to kill it, which could clearly be detrimental to the welfare of the animal. I think that the intention of the individual is incredibly difficult to prove and that could therefore create enforcement problems. If you are searching or flushing a wild mammal using a dog for one of the purposes in sections 3 or 6, you cannot achieve that by simply intending to kill it at some point. It is entirely right that, in those circumstances, the law requires that a person actually takes action to kill the wild mammal as soon as reasonably possible. For that reason, I cannot support those amendments. I will move now to amendments 2, 9, 3, 2, 1, 4, 0 and 1, 4, 1 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, which removed the condition to kill a wild mammal in a way that causes minimal possible suffering and replaces that with the term as humanely as possible. That is reintroducing a test from the 2002 act. On the face of it, I think that those amendments might not appear problematic, but we have good reason to require that the wild animal is killed in a way that causes that minimum possible suffering, as we included it on the face of the bill. We deliberately did not use the word humane. We considered what it would require in practice and we tried to be as specific as possible. To do that, we looked to the dictionary definition of humane, which is designed or calculated to inflict minimal pain. The word pain is important because we have deliberately referred to suffering. The difference is important because humane would mean that we only consider the physical humanness of the kill, whereas suffering also includes the circumstances that the wild mammal experiences. By referring to minimal possible suffering, a person would not be allowed to put the animal through fear, stress and anguish, which causes it to suffer unnecessarily prior to killing it. I believe that that is a higher standard and one that we should seek to use. I cannot support those amendments for that reason. Amendments 36, 37, 38 and 39, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, add conditions to section 3 that dogs may be used to kill a wild mammal in circumstances, including where a wild animal has been injured but not killed, is inaccessible, cannot be killed by shooting or just that it is considered humane in the circumstances. Those amendments would effectively allow a pack of dogs to kill a wild mammal in certain circumstances, which ought to be clear and entirely contrary to the principle of the bill. In fact, we have been clear from the very beginning that preventing and banning the chasing and killing of a wild mammal by dogs is the fundamental premise of the bill. I think that that could create a very obvious loophole. Aside from the fact that I cannot condone a pack of dogs killing an injured wild mammal, I am not confident that it would always be possible to establish that the mammal had genuinely been injured prior to being killed by dogs, again creating that uncertainty in enforcement that we have sought to avoid. For those reasons, I cannot support those amendments. Similarly, with amendments 69, 71, 97 and 99, in Edward Mountain's name, those amendments seek to allow a pack of dogs to kill a wild mammal, but to do so without any caveats at all. In that case, from our interpretation, a person only has to attempt to kill the wild mammal before they could set a pack of dogs on it. It creates that glaring loophole, allowing a person to make a token gesture of searching and flushing with two dogs, shooting, missing and then carrying out a hunt with a full pack of dogs. Of course, that is again contrary to what we are seeking to pursue in the bill, so I cannot support those amendments. Moving on to those in the name of Colin Smyth. Amendments 114, 120, 125 and 128 pertaining to falconry. We rehearsed some of the discussion on that point in our last session, but to reiterate, falconry is permitted in Scotland as long as it is done in accordance with all relevant legislation. The bill is not about the ethics of wildlife management or hunting or falconry for that matter, it is about the regulation of the use of dogs while undertaking those activities. Some falconers will use one or two dogs to flush wild mammals to the waiting birds of prey, which is why the bill contains provisions to allow those wild mammals that have been flushed to be shot or killed by a bird of prey. That aligns with the position under the 2002 act. I understand that some people do not think that falconry should be permitted on welfare grounds, however, as we discussed last week, it would not be correct for us to use this legislative vehicle to potentially ban lawful activities by the back door. However, I do wholly support the principle of Colin Smyth's amendments 115, 121, 126 and 129. I have been very clear that the chasing and killing of wild mammals using dogs has no place in modern Scotland, and therefore I agree that killing a wild mammal in a way that causes it the minimum possible suffering can never be allowing it to be killed by dogs. Having said that, I do have one or two concerns that, if those amendments are passed in their current form, it would create a degree of inconsistency throughout the bill. Therefore, if Colin Smyth was agreeable to not moving those amendments today, I would be happy to work with him to draft a set of amendments that maintain the consistency of the language used in the bill and fulfil what he is seeking to do here, and for that to be introduced at stage 3. Finally, amendments 203, 223, 226 and 230, in the name of Rachael Hamilton. Those amendments caveat the condition that if an attempt to kill the wild mammal results in it being injured but not killed, reasonable steps must be taken to kill it in a way that causes it the minimal possible suffering by adding the words in the circumstances. I do not think that those amendments are necessary, and I am currently worded that the bill already implicitly provides that the minimal possible suffering may depend on the circumstances, because a person can only act in the circumstances that they are in in any case. The existing condition refers to reasonable steps being taken, therefore the condition is already caveated. To try and put that simply, convener, the bill already recognises that the reasonable steps that will be taken to kill the wild mammal in a way that causes it minimal possible suffering will depend on the particular circumstances of any circumstance. I do worry that by adding the wording that Rachael Hamilton has suggested, it could be perceived that those provisions allow the use of dogs to kill the wild mammal in certain circumstances, and that is something that I absolutely want to avoid, and for those reasons I cannot support those amendments. Edward Mountain, to wind up and press or withdraw. Thank you very much, convener. I start this, I guess, disappointed that the minister has not considered my amendments on the basis that she perceives that it would create a loophole. What my amendment was trying to achieve was a more reasonable approach based on lived experience of over 45 years of management of wildlife in the countryside. Therefore, I am disappointed that she believes that people will use an excuse. This is new legislation and my amendment seeks to make it clear that you had to aim to shoot it dead rather than shoot it dead. It is not always possible to achieve that, and I can say that from a long experience. The other point that I would like to make on Rachael Hamilton's amendment is about the most humane way of dispatching a mammal. I am sure that the minister will be aware of the practice of misnetting to remove rabbits in the wild, which I will not ask the minister to explain, but if you are happy minister, do you understand misnetting or do I need to have to explain that? If Edward Mountain wishes to continue with his explanation of this activity— Okay, so misnetting would be where you put out a soft net at night, before night, prop it up, and then after darkness, when the rabbits have moved out to forage into the middle of a field, you drop the net and move the rabbits back to the net, where you then dispatch them when they become entangled with it. Shooting rabbits in those situations would not be appropriate, and dispatching the animal the rabbit by a sharp blow to the back of the head is the most effective way to do it. So shooting in some circumstances won't be appropriate, and I've rehearsed other circumstances where shooting might not be appropriate. Sorry, yes. Can I just ask—I get the point about misnetting, but what's that I got to do with hunting my dogs? Because you're using—sorry, thank you—you will know that you will use two dogs out or in the new legislation, you wouldn't use two dogs to drive the rabbit back to the nets. That's the way it's done. You don't just expect them to run into it, you will drive them back from where they're foraging away from their burrows back to the nets, where you'll then dispatch them. It is a practice— Not convinced for your arguments, Mr Mountain? Chair, please. Would you like to continue, Mr Mountain? Yes, of course, convener, and I'm sorry that I can't convince Mr Fairlie of a practice that has been going on for many years across Scotland. That is one of the reasons why I think not always shooting it might be something that the committee needs to consider. I also would like to just mention the issue of injured animals and the use of more than two dogs. As I gave the example last week, I think if I remember correctly where a deer had its jaw shattered and actually tracking that animal down took, I think it was four days to do that. You know, using two dogs would make that problem significantly more difficult, and it is not that the dogs were then going to kill the deer, it would just be a question of cornering it and then dispatching it. As you know, if they still have their four legs, they can go and survive for a considerable period of time. I don't propose to make any comments, convener, on Conan Smith's amendments, because I don't think that they're right, and I've said that before, so I wish to move the amendment in my name for clarity. You're pressing your amendments. I am pressing my amendment. Thank you. The question is that amendment 69 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, please raise your hand now. Those members wishing to abstain, please raise your hand now. That's two, four, six against. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment... Can we briefly suspend the meeting? I had just to confirm that the result of that vote was two, four, six against. The amendment has not been agreed. I now call amendment 10 in the name of Ariane Burgess, already debated with amendment 9. Ariane Burgess to move or not move. The question is that amendment 10 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, please raise your hand now. Those members wishing to abstain, and the result of the vote is two, four, seven against. The amendment has not been agreed. The question is that, beggar pardon. I don't believe... I think we recorded the vote correctly. Which vote are we talking about? No, no, I think... I'll just... Okay, just to confirm the result of that was two, four, seven against. Zero abstentions. The amendment was therefore not agreed. I call amendment 11 in the name of Ariane Burgess, already debated with amendment 9. Ariane Burgess to move or not move. The question is that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members in support for the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment, those members who wish to abstain, and the result of the vote is two, four, seven against. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 113 in the name of Colin Smyth, group with amendments 124, 144 and 242. Colin Smyth to move amendment 113 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Amendments 113 and 124 in my name would require that reasonable steps are taken to ensure that dogs don't form a relay. Mounted hunts in England have been observed using multiple pairs of dogs, one after the other, to chase stags. This amendment would help avoid a similar practice emerging here in Scotland by making it an offence. It's crucial that we take this opportunity to ensure that this bill is as robust as it possibly can be, including preempting any possible consequences, which we have done in relation to jail hunting. It's 20 years since the protection of wild mammals Scotland that 2002 was passed by Parliament, and it's clear that there were far too many loopholes, which people have been allowed to exploit for far too long. This bill cannot be a continuation of business as usual. It must close the loopholes that still exist and it must not create new ones. I therefore move amendment 113 in my name. On amendment 242 in Rachael Hamilton's name, it would alter the definition of under control to include any dog carrying out an activity for which they have been trained. It is quite different than the common understanding of the term. I am concerned that amendment would change the definition of control for the entire bill, which would have worrying consequences. It would allow the dog to be out of sight and hearing, which I think undermines the bill completely. On amendment 242, in section 222, an additional phrase included in the 2002 act in recognition that there will need to be occasions when trained dogs and working dogs will be in situations where it is not possible to direct their activity by physical contact or verbal or audible command, such as in large areas of forestry, in certain weather conditions or below ground. As trained working dogs, that does not mean that they are not under control. In addition, the rain committee also received evidence that in some situations it may be important that the person using the dog is not directing and making a noise or engaged physically, as in the case of a dog below ground. Under control is a key condition throughout the bill for all accepted activity to be lawful. It is essential that it is not to find in a way that could make those exceptions unworkable, at least in some situations where the use of dogs is necessary. Amendment 2446 provides a definition of pack for the purposes of the bill. I would just like to explain why I tabled this amendment. Last week in committee I asked the minister to put on record the comments around the types of dogs that are working in a rough shoot and the specific points on a dog forming a pack. The minister responded by saying that, for the purpose of the bill, a pack is defined. It is more than two dogs. She was happy to put on the record that she understood that dogs are generally used in rough shooting such as gun dogs are well trained and do not chase or form packs. However, I would like to challenge the minister on this point because I believe that the minister contradicted herself and hence the need for an amendment to determine the difference between dogs forming a pack like hounds and gun dogs, as she clearly stated that do not form a pack. The amendment is really to get that clarification for the Scottish Government to clarify the pack definition and recognise that gun dogs do not form a pack. I hope in that sense that this amendment is helpful to the minister. If the minister would like to work with me on this particular definition, I would be very happy to do so if she feels that it is an important clarification. Thank you, convener. Just briefly, I wanted to add my support to amendments 113 and 124 in the name of Colin Smyth, which seek to exclude relays as well as packs. I think that this is important because these practices have been observed in England as a loophole to continue mounted hunts. I think that it is important that we prevent that loophole from being used here. I cannot support amendment 242 in the name of Rachel Hamilton as this definition of under control seems to defy any reasonable understanding of the phrase. I am also not minded to support amendment 244 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, because it has already been made clear throughout the course of the passage of the bill that the pack definition that we are working with is more than two dogs. I will be interested to hear the minister's response to this, but I am not minded to support this amendment. I would like to give my support to Colin Smyth's amendments in this grouping. It would be prudent to require that reasonable steps are taken to ensure that dogs do not form a relay. As Colin Smyth mentioned, mounted hunts in England have seen using several pairs of dogs one after the other to chase stage tags. Those amendments would help to avoid similar practices being adopted here by making it an offence. I do not support Rachel Hamilton's amendments in this grouping. Her new amendment 244 divides the term pack in a way that excludes working gun dogs. Gun dogs are simply dogs trained to retrieve game. Apart from the problem of unambiguously defining what a working gun dog is, providing whether a dog is a gun dog and whether it was working at the time that it hunted a wild mammal, this definition of pack would create yet another loophole as those bent on hunting with packs of dogs would simply argue that they were using working gun dogs. Frankly, this amendment seems like an 11th hour attempt to allow hunting with packs of dogs to continue not to protect livestock or the environment, but for sport, for human and entertainment that is unacceptable and I cannot support this amendment. Are you taking intervention? I was concluding my comment. Would you like to take an intervention? Yes, absolutely. If you want to take an intervention. I just want to get your thoughts on the points that were raised last week regarding rough shooting. You say that working dogs could be used as a cover for other activities. What is it that you believe in terms of a working dog being confused for possibly a lurcher or a hound? As we discussed last week and in previous times during taking evidence, what we found is that, in the 2002 act, loopholes were discovered after a fact. What I am concerned about is allowing any space for any interpretation in any situation. I think that people were very creative around interpretation of the 2002 act and I want to ensure that there are no loopholes and I believe that you bringing in this amendment will potentially create a loophole. I have listened carefully to the arguments. I am disappointed that Colin Smyth uses the example of stags and stag hunting south of the border. I am sure that Colin Smyth will be well aware that the last deer hand pack was disbanded in about 1920 and it was based down at Kuliki, which is by Fort Augustus. Deer hunting with dogs has not been something that has been done in Scotland, so what we are talking about is forming a pack or a relay. I think that we can discount stags for the reason that I have given. I understand why the minister has put this clause within the bill and I have made it clear that I do not support the minister on this particular issue with two dogs. However, as it appears that this is going to go through, I would just caution on the use of relay because if you are starting to follow up a animal using two dogs that they cannot run all day, Mr Smyth, in the same way that I can't run all day. In fact, my duration and stamina is such that I can run for only short periods of time, so taking the dogs off ascent and replacing them with dogs that are fresh on ascent to flush an animal out, which, as we have heard, may be a large woodland, is the appropriate thing to do. Therefore, I cannot support the amendment. I do not like the original wording of the act, but if the original wording of the act is to remain, I would really ask the minister not to support the amendment of the word or relay. I will begin with Colin Smyth's amendments 1, 1, 3, 1, 2, 4, that we were just discussing there. I understand the reasons why Colin Smyth lodged the amendment, but I do not think that it is necessary and that it could have practical problems. The bill states that, unless a licence has been granted, only two dogs can be used to search for, flush and stalk a wild mammal. It also clearly sets out that, when a person is using two dogs for that activity, reasonable steps must be taken to shoot the wild mammal or kill it with a bird of prey as soon as reasonably possible. That is a watertight set of circumstances. If it was the case that relay was being used and that we were saying two dogs followed by two dogs, you are confident that that would be caught by the legislation and that that would not be permissible? Is that what you are saying? Again, when we are using a term like relay, we probably all have different views of what constitutes a relay. We discussed in the context of rough shooting, for example, that to use two dogs for the activity is what is permitted in lawful, but you could have another two on a lead or somewhere else that could be swapped in. That Edward Mountain's point about the dogs becoming exhausted in the course of a lawful activity is taken account of that. My point is that nobody should be using a relay, albeit that we do not have a defined definition for that in order to deliberately prolong the flushing of the dog. The only instances that I have heard of are those that Colin Smyth and Carrie Anne Burgess referred to about using a relay, if we can call it that, to chase stags or coarse hairs. I was just going to finish that point, and I was certainly well taken intervention, but those activities are already clearly prohibited by the bill. The legislation, as I read it, would allow effectively two dogs to be used and then those two dogs to be substituted effectively by another two dogs and then by another two dogs potentially chasing the same wild mammal or basically trying to flush out the same wild mammal. Is that the case? You cannot effectively substitute two dogs in the same area under the legislation. Is that what you're saying? Is that certainly not my interpretation of the legislation? In those circumstances that Colin Smyth describes, I don't think that would ever arise, because what I described was dogs being on a lead, dogs being elsewhere, dogs being held back and could be used as part of the activity if swapped in at a later date. There's no way that that could be done to pursue the same quarry, the same animal, and it would therefore not prolong flushing. It would be very much a case of, for example, we discussed that in the context of rough shooting, that you must only ever control two dogs at one time, two dogs could be in the back of a land rover, could be gotten for the second half of the day, they would not be able to be swapped in with a speed to allow it to continue to chase the same quarry. I can't support the Colin Smyth's amendments for those reasons. Moving on to amendment 244, Rachel Hamilton's amendment adding a definition of a pack into the bill, and I note that that is, as a group of two or more dogs trained for hunting and excluding working gun dogs. As Rachel Hamilton said, I have sought to make clear in previous committee sessions that for the purposes of the bill a pack is more than two dogs, that's already explicit on the face of the bill, and I don't think that any further definition is required. I don't agree that there's a contradiction. The pack is more than two dogs and can apply to any dogs. That approach of consistency throughout the bill is something that we described and discussed in quite a lot of detail in our last session. I don't support any attempts to create different rules for different types of dogs. The bill is about regulating the use of all hunting dogs, regardless of the type of hunting that's taken place. I haven't seen any evidence to justify an exception for gun dogs. On that, as well as the substance of the amendment, I have some concerns about the way it's drafted as well. I think that Rachel Hamilton probably intended to refer to more than two dogs as constituting a pack, but what is written in the amendment is two or more. From my view, two doesn't constitute a pack under the bill, it's more than two. I'll pick up again on the exclusion of gun dogs from the definition. I think that it would be very difficult to establish whether or not a dog is a working gun dog. That might be a phrase that's used in ordinary language, but it's not sufficiently clear in legislative terms and, of course, the definition risks creating a loophole to allow people to circumvent the two dog limit, a cornerstone of the bill. I can't support that amendment for those reasons. Rachel Hamilton's amendment 242 again amends the definition of under control to reinstate wording from the 2002 act to include that a dog is under control if it's carrying out an activity for which it has been trained. Rachel Hamilton's intention would be that that would apply to all circumstances in the bill. One of the key principles in the bill is that when dogs are used to search for flush or stockwell mammals, they must be under control. It's a cornerstone of the bill. The bill sets out that a person who is responsible for the dog is able to direct the dog's activity by physical contact or verbal or audible command. Dogs are animals at the end of the day and even the best trained dogs will sometimes react in an unexpected way. I don't accept that it's enough to simply rely upon a dog to carry out an activity for which it's been trained, which would be the effect of that amendment in the past. In extreme circumstances, you can imagine that a dog could be trained for purposes that we would not wish it to carry out. I fear that that would significantly widen the definition of control, which is a key provision of the bill. I'll leave it there, convener. Colin Smyth to wind up, press or withdraw. I have to say that I am disappointed that there is no support for amendment 113. The purpose of the bill is to close the loopholes that were left open by the protection of wild mammals Scotland in 2002, avoiding any new loopholes. I believe that that is a potential loophole. My amendments are designed to make sure that those hunting cannot effectively use multiple pairs of dogs one after the other to chase wild mammals. I really would only be needed if those dogs were relentlessly pursuing a wild mammal over a long period of time, so excluding the term really leaves this possibility open as a potential loophole that could be exploited. I'm not convinced that a second or a third pair of dogs effectively being substituted are not likely to be chasing the same quarry, and I'm unsure how that would be enforced. I'm not convinced that you simply would not end up in a position whereby a second or a third pair of dogs are continuing in the same area, effectively chasing the same quarry based. I'm sure that it's not intentional, but I just think that we need to be careful not to be using the word chasing here, because the bill in itself makes unlawful or makes clear that it's unlawful for any dogs to chase or kill a wild animal. The lawful activity is to flush, so we just ought not to refer to chasing. The minister may not like to refer to chasing, but that is the reality of what we're talking about here in this bill. It will happen, and there's no question about it. The debate in the bill is whether or not that's a pack of hounds or two dogs, but that's effectively what will happen. However, whether or not they're flushing out or chasing dogs, the point that's been made several times is that two dogs may become exhausted over a period of time, and so too may that wild mammal that's being flushed out, chased or whatever, become exhausted as well. There's no animal welfare argument that says that there's an argument to substitute two dogs. Thank you. I don't mean to interrupt Colin Smyth. I think that we just need to be absolutely clear, because my point in response to his amendment was that I agree with him that we cannot have perpetual flushing, but what I'm saying is that the provisions of the bill already account for that, not least the two dog limit. Equally, as my colleague has just pointed out to me, the bill already provides that once flushed, the wild mammal must be shot or killed as soon as reasonably practical. The circumstances that Colin Smyth narrates would be unlawful under the bill, and everything that we've done has been about trying to make those instances where they arise clearer to law enforcement and not come in across the difficulties that we had under the 2000 act. A lot of what Colin Smyth is describing is unlawful under the bill, and my point is that that's why his amendment isn't necessary. I don't think that that changes the fundamental point, that wild mammals escape, that they're not always flushed out immediately, that they're often running for cover elsewhere, and that, effectively, what you're allowing to continue is the perpetual flushing out-chasing of those animals over a period of time by allowing two dogs to be substituted. The only circumstance that I can think of when you would substitute two dogs is over a long period of time, and there's nothing in my reading of the bill that would not potentially mean that the same wild mammal is effectively being pursued by those two dogs, and then a further two dogs, and then a further two dogs. There's nothing in the legislation that stops that, stops that happening, as far as I can read from this. I mean, because two dogs are seeking to flush out a wild mammal doesn't always mean that that mammal does not, I've kind of finished my point, but it does not mean that that mammal may successfully be shot immediately, and then further dogs will be used to basically continue to flush out that animal. I thank Colin for taking an intervention. I think you're getting confused between hunting and flushing. What we're doing is we're talking about flushing and using dogs to flush. We're not talking about hunting. You're sort of giving the illusion that this will be taking place over miles and miles of the countryside. That's not what we're talking about. What we're talking about is putting dogs into cover to flush a mammal out to allow it to be controlled. So, as Mr Fairlie has made permanently clear, or sorry, positively clear, is that, in thick bits of cover, maybe a 200 acre wood, you will probably need to consider replacing a dog as you're trying to flush the animal out. So, I think you're giving an illusion which is misrepresentative of the act and what the Minister's trying to achieve, but I'm sure the Minister doesn't need my support to clarify her position. I mean, I have to say, I think that Mr Mountain actually probably does more to support the point that I'm making about large areas of land in the use of—you'd only need more than two dogs over a period of time if it was a large area of land. So, I think that Mr Mountain uses my argument. The very fact that Mr Mountain says that in his previous comments that the issue in England is stags and we won't have that in Scotland doesn't actually matter what the mammal is, the same principle exists. I think that it is crucial that this bill is as effective as possible in making sure that we don't create new loopholes and are, I mean, unconvinced of the need for multiple groups of dogs because that's effectively what the bill will continue and I don't understand why. If that's unlikely to be acquired in a particular area, why we allow in the legislation are really effectively to continue. I'll just finish my comments, but I have to take that. Jim Fairlie. Oh, you're taking the—sorry, my apologies, I thought you were saying that. I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but the practicalities of what you're talking about or what the member is talking about simply do not bear out in the reality. I think that what the minister has done is put adequate proposals in place to stop the kind of hunting that we all want to see banned and we do want to see that banned. This idea that you can stop a hunt halfway through, take two dogs out and put another two in is without trying to be rude ludicrous. It's just never going to happen because the practicalities would not allow it. So I think that probably just backs up my case and if it will not happen then why are you concerned that it's in the legislation that makes it an offence to happen? It just seems to me that if you're of the view, and I don't agree with you, but if you're of the view that we'll never get a situation where two dogs will be used and then substitute effectively by another two dogs, if Mr Fairlie is saying that won't happen, I don't agree with that, but if he is saying that won't happen then there is nothing at all that should not close that potential loophole in the legislation to make it an offence to happen in the first place. Why would you be concerned? No, it doesn't matter. The question is that amendment 113 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 hand now. Those members wishing to abstain, please raise your hand now. The result of the vote is too far, seven against, that the amendment has not been agreed. I now call amendment 194 in the name of Beatrice Wishart, a group with amendments as shown in the groupings. Beatrice Wishart, to move amendment 194 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I move amendment 194 and speak to all the amendments from 194 through to 202 in my name, which relate to land owner permission. In the bill that is drafted, the requirement to get land owner permission for hunting with dogs was unclear to me in situations where either there are joint land owners for one piece of land or a piece of land that is split between multiple land owners. My amendments 194, 196, 198, 200 and 201 add the phrase, or owners, as the case may be. Bill currently states that permission for the activity has been given by the owner of the land. My amendments 195, 197, 199 and 200 add avoidance of doubt clauses that state that if an activity takes place across land under more than one person's ownership, then permission must be given by each owner of the land on which the activity takes place. Taken together, those amendments capture both situations of joint land ownership and multiple land owners and make it clear that each must give permission for the activity to take place. Any other members wishing to… Sorry, Beatrice, I don't believe you moved the amendment. I thought ahead, but I do move. Thank you. Any other members? I would just like to thank Beatrice Wishart for bringing forward those amendments, which I am minded to support, because from what we've just heard, it sounds as though they would help to clarify the legislation. I'd be interested to hear from the minister if there's any reason why she wouldn't agree with them. I understand why she's lodged them. I support the intention behind them. However, my view is that they are unnecessary and shouldn't be supported to avoid any inconsistencies. I'll explain why. Section 22 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform Scotland Act 2010, which applies to this bill, sets out that when interpreting legislation, we should take it that the use of the singular includes the plural and vice versa. That means that, in relation to this bill and to that point that Beatrice Wishart references, the reference to the owner in each of the exceptions can be read as owner or owners, depending on the circumstances. There's no need to restate that. I think that doing so could cast out on other uses of the singular throughout the bill, such as references to wild mammal, for example. We would want the consistency that any singular can refer to the plural and vice versa. I hope that that reassures the member and Mercedes Villalba about the effects of those amendments being that they are already built in and that any exception in those circumstances could cast out on the other references throughout the bill. Minister, are you willing to take an intervention? Yes, of course. Thank you. I understand what you're saying about the singular referring to the plural as default. That's half of the amendments in this grouping, but the other half also has this for the avoidance of doubt clause in terms of ensuring that permission is sought for each owner of each section of land. I'm not sure that that's been addressed by your comment about the singular referring to the plural. With apologies, convener, I didn't reference that specifically, because my point is that, with the plural including the singular, we don't need the for the avoidance of doubt clauses. Thank you. Beatrice Wishart to wind up and press or withdraw. Thank you, convener. I thank the minister for her explanation. She'll know that I raised this when she took time out to meet with me earlier to discuss this point. I'm grateful for her explanation. Given what she has said, I am happy to withdraw. The member has indicated that she wishes to withdraw the amendment. Does any other member object? No. Amendment 70, in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 69, Edward Mountain to move or not move. The question is that amendment 70 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There'll 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 of the vote is two for seven against. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 114, in the name of Colin Smith, already debated with amendment 69. Colin Smith to move or not move. The question is that amendment 114 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 who wish to abstain. The result of the vote is two for seven against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 114, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 69. I'll just repeat that. I call amendment 140, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 69. I remind members that, if amendment 140 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 115 and 203 because of preemption. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 140 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 of the vote is two for seven against. The amendment had zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 115, in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 69. Colin Smyth to move or not move. Convener, in later the minister's comments to discuss the wording of amendments 115, 121, 126 and 129, I'm happy not to move amendment 115. That amendment has not been moved, so we'll not consider that amendment. I call amendment 203, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 69. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 203 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 of the vote is two for seven against. The amendment has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 71, in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 69. Edward Mountain to move or not move. The question is that amendment 71 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 of the vote is two for seven against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 36, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 69. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 36 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. The result of the vote is two for seven against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 195, in the name of Beatrice Wishart, already debated with amendment 194. Beatrice Wishart to move or not move. The amendment has not been moved. We will not consider that amendment. The question is that section 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 21, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 9. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 21 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 of the vote is three for six against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 191, in the name of Jim Fairlie, already debated with amendment 9. Jim Fairlie to move or not move. The question is that amendment 191 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. Raise your hand now. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is six for one against. Two abstentions. The amendment has therefore been agreed. I call amendment 72, in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 9. Edward Mountain to move or not move. The question is that amendment 72 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 of the vote is two for seven against. The amendment has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 156, in the name of Christine Grahame, already debated with amendment 9. I remind members that if amendment 156 is agreed, I cannot call amendment 204 because of a preemption. Christine Grahame to move or not move. On Christine Grahame's behalf, I will not move. It's not moved. We will not consider that amendment. I call amendment 205, in the name of Rachel Hamilton. I now call amendment 204, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 9. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 204 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 of the vote is two for seven against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 205, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 204, in the name of Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 205 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment. Those members wishing to abstain. And the result of the vote is two for six against with one abstention. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 22, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 9. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 22 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 of the vote is two for six against with one abstention. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 206, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 9. Are my members that if amendment 206 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 23, through pre-exemption. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 206 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 of the vote is two for seven against zero abstentions. The amendment therefore is not agreed. I call amendment 23, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 9. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 23 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 of the vote is two for seven against the amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 157, in the name of Jim Fairlie, already debated with amendment 9. Jim Fairlie to move or not move. The question is that amendment 157 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, raise your hand now. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is five for one against three abstentions. The amendment has been agreed. I call amendment 116, in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 9. Colin Smyth to move or not move. The question is that amendment 116 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 of the vote is two for seven against the amendment, therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 207, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 9. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 207 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 of the vote is two for seven against zero abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 243, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, and a group on its own. I remind members that if amendment 243 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 208 and 158, already debated in licensing group, due to the pre-exemption. Rachel Hamilton to move and speak to amendment 243. Thank you convener. Amendment 243 would extend the period of time in which a 14-day licence could be used from 14 days to six months from the date at which the licence was granted. Having listened to the minister's comments on my previous amendments in relation to the extension of the duration of time in which a 14-day licence could be used, this amendment reflects some of the comments that were made and revises this period down from 12 months to six months. To reiterate what I've said previously about extending the period of time in which a licence can be used, I believe that it's important to acknowledge that the control of wild mammals is preventative and not simply in response to damage having been suffered, so a reactive method. We must recognise that fox control is a year-round activity and that it is conducted using a variety of methods depending on factors such as the terrain and the time of year. Farming is not just a hobby, it is a business that manages land and produces food, and there has been much made of allowing businesses to carry out their role without over bureaucratic dictate from pen pushes and therefore ensuring that they can operate in a practical as way as possible. I move the amendment in my name. Bureaucratic dictate from pen pushers is not a reasonable way to describe the work of NatureScot and others, but I will leave that up to the member. Rachel Hamilton will probably not be surprised with my view in this given that we debated the amendment that I brought forward at last time session. I said then that I had listened very carefully to the discussions on the licensing period during the committee's scrutiny. When I spoke to one amendment 158 last week, I said that I'd come to the conclusion that allowing some flexibility over the period of time in which the licence the 14 days may be used was justified, and that is why I brought forward amendment 158, which, just to remind the committee, would see the period of time for which licence can be granted under section 4, be the original maximum 14 days, but that would be in a period of six consecutive months. Of course, I considered Rachel Hamilton's amendment 243, allowing the licence to be granted for up to 28 days over six months, but I remain very much of the view that 14 days is the right number for the licence to cover. I think that that allows the sufficient flexibility to deal with changes to plans, to bad weather, to other unforeseen events, while not facilitating any more days of hunting over the period. Having spoken myself widely with stakeholders, I believe that 14 days is sufficient for the licence to predator control needs of most farms, and I think that 28 days allows too many days of activity under a particular licence, given the very real need to maintain a tight control. As it stands, I believe that the bill limits the environmental benefit exception to situations where the use of dogs, whether two dogs or more than two dogs under licence, where this is part of the scheme. It does seem unnecessarily burdensome, given that land managers often undertake pest control to protect and enhance wildlife. I have no idea why they should have to come up with a scheme, what amounts to a scheme, is not to find in the bill. It is not clear from the evidence sessions and from the documents accompanying the bill that the scheme is currently conceived of in terms of the work of NatureScot and RSPB and other large bodies. I am still concerned that, like most managers, they have a land management plan. Is that a scheme? If they wish to use more than two dogs, what amounts to that scheme? In terms of a licence for environmental benefit, it is surely sufficient that NatureScot should be happy that the use of more than two dogs is necessary and will make a significant contribution to environmental benefit. As such, with regard to the loss of biodiversity, it is strange why we would want anyone to discourage wildlife management that assists in that nature recovery or limit it to statutory bodies and charities when the vast majority of land is held privately and managed privately. If ministers are serious about reversing biodiversity loss and saving species such as the Curlow and Cappacaly, we must work with land managers not against them to ensure that, in those situations, livelihoods are protected and that wildlife is managed in order to protect livestock. I will press the amendments in my name. The question is that amendment 243 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 of the vote is too far, seven against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 208, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 9. I remind members that if amendment 208 is agreed, I cannot call amendment 158. The question is that amendment 208 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members in favour, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is too far, seven against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 158, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 9. Minister to formally move. The question is that amendment 158 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 24, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 9. The question is that amendment 24 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 abstaining. We missed the vote. I am just going to call the vote again. The amendment 24, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, will be agreed to. Those members not supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members against. Those members abstaining. Members are really appreciated if you make your votes as clear as possible. I thought that we were still on 158 and I realise that it is probably too late to change my vote. Can I just note on the record that I would have opposed? I think that your comments will appear in the official report. The result of the vote is 24, seven against, zero abstentions. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 209, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 9. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 209 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 of the vote is 24, seven against, zero abstentions. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 159, in the name of Christine Grahame, already debated with amendment 9. On Christine Grahame's behalf, I will not move. That has not been moved and will not consider amendment 159. I call amendment 210, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 9. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 210 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 of the vote is 24, seven against, zero abstentions. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 160, in the name of Jim Fairlie, already debated with amendment 9. Jim Fairlie to move or not move. The question is that amendment 160 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 of the vote is 64, zero against, three abstentions. The amendment therefore has been agreed. I call amendment 211, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 9. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 211 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 of the vote is 24, seven against, the amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 161, in the name of Christine Grahame, already debated with amendment 9. Christine Grahame to move or not move. On Christine Grahame's behalf, I will not move. Amendment 161 has not been moved. We will not consider it. I call amendment 25, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 9. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 25 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 of the vote is 24, seven against, the amendment has not therefore been agreed. I call amendment 12, in the name of Ariane Burgess, already debated with amendment 9. Ariane Burgess to move or not move. The question is that amendment 12 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 of the vote is 24, seven against, the amendment has not therefore been agreed. I call amendment 73, in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 1. No, we don't need to have a question on that. Edward Mountain to move or not move. Sorry, I may have misheard. Are you asking if I'm moving 73? I'm moving 73. The question is that amendment 73 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 of the vote is 24, seven against, the amendment has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 74, in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 1. Edward Mountain to move or not move. Move, convener. The question is that amendment 74 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 of the vote is 24, seven against, the amendment has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 75, in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 1. Edward Mountain to move or not move. Not moved, convener. The question is that amendment bigger not moved. I should have made it clear. I'm not going to move 75 on the basis that I'm not sure my definition of pole cat meets the requirements, so I didn't move it previously and I'm not going to move anyone relating to pole cats. Amendment 75 has not been moved or therefore not considered. I call amendment 76, in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 1. Edward Mountain to move or not move. Move, convener. The question is that amendment 76 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 of the vote is 24, seven against, the amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 162, in the name of Jenny Minto, already debated with amendment 1. Jenny Minto to move or not move. I move, convener. The question is that amendment 162 be agreed to. Are we all 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 wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is six, four, three against, the amendment therefore has been agreed. I call amendment 212, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 1. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 212 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 of the vote is two, four, seven against, the amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 213, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 1. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 213 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the division, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment, those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is two, four, seven against, the amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 77, in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 1. Edward Mountain to move or not move. Amendment 77 has not been moved, will therefore not consider that amendment. I now call amendment 78, in the name of Edward Mountain, not moved. We will not consider that amendment. I call amendment 79, in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 1. Not moved. Not moved. Call amendment 80, in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 1. Edward Mountain to move or not move. Not moved. I call amendment 163, in the name of Jenny Minto, already debated with amendment 1. Jenny Minto to move or not move. The question is that amendment 163 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will have 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 of the vote is 6, 4, 3 against the amendment, therefore has been agreed. I call amendment 214, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 1. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. Move, convener. The question is that amendment 214 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 of the vote is 2, 4, 7 against the amendment, therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 215, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 1. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. Move. The question is that amendment 215 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. Move. Those members not supporting the amendment. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 2, 4, 7 against the amendment, therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 117, in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 1. Colin Smyth to move or not move. I think that, in light of the comments regarding consistency of language in the use of the word immediate, as opposed to, for example, as reasonably possible, I won't move the amendment at this stage, but I may bring back amendment stage 3, because I do believe that the bill would benefit from clarity at that point, but I won't move at this stage. That amendment 117 has not been moved. I call amendment 118, in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 35. Colin Smyth to move or not move. It's not moved. Amendment 118 has not been moved. I call amendment 81, in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 1. Edward Mountain to move or not move. Moved, convener. The question is that amendment 81 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 of the vote is 2 for 7 against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 82, in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 1. Edward Mountain to move or not move. The question is that amendment 82 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 of the vote is 2 for 7 against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 83, in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 1. Edward Mountain to move or not move. As this refers to a Polcat not moved. So amendment 83 has not been moved. I call amendment 84, in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 1. Edward Mountain to move or not move. The question is that amendment 84 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 of the vote is 2 for 7 against. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 164, in the name of Jenny Minto, already debated with amendment 1. Jenny Minto to move or not move. The question is that amendment 164 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 of the vote is 6 for 3 against. The amendment has been agreed. I call amendment 216, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 1. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 216 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 of the vote is 2 for 7 against. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 26, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 1. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 26 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 wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 2 for 7 against. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 217, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 1. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 217 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 of the vote is 2 for 7 against. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 119, in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 35. Colin Smyth to move or not move. The question is that amendment 119 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. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 3 for 6 against. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 144, in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 35. Colin Smyth to move or not move. The question is that amendment 144 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 of the vote is 2 for 7 against. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 218, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 1. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 218 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 of the vote is 2 for 7 against. Zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 27, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 1. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 27 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, please raise your hand now. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 2 for 7 against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 219, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 1. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 219 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 of the vote is 2 for 7 against. Zero abstentions. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 28, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 1. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. Move, convener. The question is that amendment 28 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 of the vote is 2 for 7 against. Zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 196, in the name of Beatrice Wishart, already debated with amendment 194. Beatrice Wishart to move or not move. Not move, convener. That is amendment 196, not moved. I call amendment 220, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 1. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 220 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 of the vote is 2 for 7 against. Zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 85, in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 1. Edward Mountain to move or not move. The question is that amendment 85 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, raise your hand now. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 2 for 7 against. Zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 86, in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 1. Edward Mountain to move or not move. Move, convener. The question is that amendment 86 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 of the vote is 2 for 7 against. Zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 87, in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 1. Edward Mountain to move or not move. The result of the vote is 2, convener. Not moved. Amendment 87, therefore, has not been moved. I call amendment 88, in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 1. Edward Mountain to move or not move. Move, convener. The question is that amendment 88 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 of the vote is 2 for 7 against. The amendment has not been agreed. Excuse me. I call amendment 165, in the name of Jenny Minto, already debated with amendment 1. Jenny Minto to move or not move. Move, convener. The question is that amendment 165 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 of the vote is 6 for 3 against. Zero abstentions. The amendment has therefore been agreed. I call amendment 221, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 1. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. Move, convener. The question is that section... Now are we... Do we need to... It's amendment 222. Yeah, I beg your pardon. The question is that amendment 221 is agreed to. Are we 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, please raise your hand now. The result of the vote is 2 for 7 against. Zero abstentions. The amendment has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 120, in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 69. Colin Smyth to move or not move. The question is that amendment 120 will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. 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 of the vote is 2 for 7 against. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 89, in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 1. Edward Mountain to move or not move. Moved, convener. And the question is that amendment 89 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 of the vote is 2 for 7 against. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 90, in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 1. Edward Mountain to move or not move. Moved, convener. And the question is that amendment 90 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. 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 of the vote is 2 for 7 against. Zero abstentions. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 91, in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 1. Edward Mountain to move or not move. There it is again, convener, not moved. Amendment 91 has not been moved. And I call amendment 92, in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 1. Edward Mountain to move or not move. Moved, convener. The question is that amendment 92 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. 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 of the vote is 2 for 7 against. Zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 166, in the name of Jenny Minto. Already debated with amendment 1. Jenny Minto to move or not move. Moved, convener. The question is that amendment 166 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Are we all agreed? Yes. 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 of the vote is 6 for 3 against. The amendment has been agreed. I call amendment 222, in the name of Rachel Hamilton. Already debated with amendment 1. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. Moved, convener. The question is that amendment 222 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 of the vote is 2 for 7 against. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 29, in the name of Rachel Hamilton. Already debated with amendment 69. I remind members that if amendment 29 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 121 and 223 through pre-exemption. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. Moved. The question is that 29 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 of the vote is 2 for 7 against. Three abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 121, in the name of Colin Smyth. Already debated with amendment 69. Colin Smyth to move or not move. Not moved. Amendment 121 has not been moved. I call amendment 223, in the name of Rachel Hamilton. Already debated with amendment 69. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 223 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 of the vote is 2 for 7 against. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 37, in the name of Rachel Hamilton. Already debated with amendment 69. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 37 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 of the vote is 2 for 7 against. See the abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 224, in the name of Rachel Hamilton. Already debated with amendment 1. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 224 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be an amendment. 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 of the vote is 3 for 6 against. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 197, in the name of Beatrice Wishart. Already debated with amendment 194. Beatrice Wishart to move or not move. Amendment 197 has not been moved. I call amendment 122, in the name of Colin Smyth. Already debated with amendment 35. Colin Smyth to move or not move. The question is that amendment 122 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 of the vote is 2 for 7 against. 3 abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 93, 94, 95 and 96, all in the name of Edward Mountain and all previously debated with amendment 1. Edward Mountain to move amendment 93 to 96 on block. I call amendment 167, in the name of Jenny Mintow. Already debated with amendment 1. Jenny Mintow to move or not move. The question is that amendment 167 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, please raise your hand now. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 6 for 2 against. 1 abstention. The amendment has been agreed. I call amendment 225, in the name of... Sorry. Check that vote, because I think there might have been a delay on the teams. I'm going to run the vote again for 167, in the name of Jenny Mintow. We weren't 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 of the vote is 6 for 3 against. The amendment has been agreed. I call amendment 225, in the name of Rachel Hamilton. Already debated with amendment 1. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 225 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 of the vote is 2 for 7 against. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 13, in the name of Ariane Burgess. Already debated with amendment 1. Ariane Burgess to move or not move. The question is that amendment 13 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. Please raise your hand. The result of the vote is 2 for 7 against. The amendment has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 123, in the name of Colin Smyth. Already debated with amendment 2. Colin Smyth to move or not move. The question is that amendment 123 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 of the vote is 2 for 7 against. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 145, in the name of Colin Smyth. Already debated with amendment 35. Colin Smyth to move or not move. The question is that amendment 145 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 of the vote is 2 for 7 against. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 97, in the name of Edward Mountain. Already debated with amendment 69. Edward Mountain to move or not move. Move, convener. The question is that amendment 97 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 of the vote is 2 for 7 against. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 124, in the name of Colin Smyth. Already debated with amendment 113. Colin Smyth to move or not move. The question is that amendment 124 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 of the vote is 2 for 7 against. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 198, in the name of Beatrice Wishart. Already debated with amendment 194. Beatrice Wishart to move or not move. Not moved, convener. Amendment 198 has not been moved. I call amendment 198, in the name of Edward Mountain. Already debated with amendment 69. Edward Mountain to move or not move. Moved, convener. The question is that amendment 98 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 of the vote is 2 for 7 against. Zero abstentions. The amendment has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 125, in the name of Colin Smyth. Already debated with amendment 69. Colin Smyth to move or not move. The question is that amendment 125 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 of the vote is 2 for 7 against. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 141, in the name of Rachel Hamilton. Already debated with amendment 69. Are we all agreed that if amendment 141 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 126 and 226. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 141 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 of the vote is 2 for 7 against. Zero abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 126, in the name of Colin Smyth. Already debated with amendment 69. Colin Smyth to move or not move. Amendment 126 has not been moved. I call amendment 226, in the name of Rachel Hamilton. Already debated with amendment 69. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 226 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 of the vote is 2 for 7 against. Zero abstentions. The amendment has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 38, in the name of Rachel Hamilton. Already debated with amendment 69. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 38 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. 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 of the vote is 2 for 7 against. Zero abstentions. The amendment therefore has not been carried. I call amendment 99, in the name of Edward Mountain. Already debated with amendment 69. Edward Mountain to move or not move. Moved, convener. The question is that amendment 99 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 of the vote is 2 for 7 against. Zero abstentions. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 227, in the name of Rachel Hamilton. Already debated with amendment 227. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 227 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. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 3 for 6 against. Zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 199, in the name of Beatrice Wishart. Already debated with amendment 194. Beatrice Wishart to move or not move. Not moved. Amendment 199 has not been moved. I call amendment 100, in the name of Edward Mountain. Already debated with amendment 2. Edward Mountain to move or not move. Moved, convener. The question is that amendment 100 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 of the vote is 2 for 6 against. Zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 146, in the name of Colin Smyth. Already debated with amendment 2. Colin Smyth to move or not move. Not moved. Amendment 146 has not been moved. I call amendment 101, in the name of Edward Mountain. Already debated with amendment 2. Edward Mountain to move or not move. Move, convener. The question is that amendment 101 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. 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 abstaining. The result of the vote is 2 for 6 against. One abstention. The amendment has not been agreed. I call on amendment 102, in the name of Edward Mountain. Already debated with amendment 2. Edward Mountain to move or not move. Moved, convener. The question is that amendment 102 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members in support of the amendment, please raise your hand. Those members not supporting the amendment. Those members abstaining. The result of the vote is 2 for 6 against. One abstention. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 228, in the name of Rachel Hamilton. Already debated with amendment 2. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 228 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members in support of the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members in support of the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members abstaining. The result of the vote is 8 for 1 against. Zero abstentions. The amendment therefore has been agreed. I call amendment 14, in the name of Ariane Burgess. Already debated with amendment 2. Ariane Burgess to move or not move. The question is that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members in support of the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 2 for 7 against. Zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 142, in the name of Rachel Hamilton. Already debated with amendment 2. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 142 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members in support of the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 2 for 7 against. Zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 143, in the name of Rachel Hamilton. Already debated with amendment 2. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 143 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members in support of the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 2 for 6 against. One abstention. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 168, in the name of the minister. Already debated with amendment 148. Minister to formally move. I call amendment 168A, in the name of Rachel Hamilton. Already debated with amendment 148. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 168A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members in support of the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 2 for 7 against. Zero abstentions. The amendment has therefore not been agreed. The question is that amendment 168A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 169, in the name of the minister. Already debated with amendment 148A. Minister to formally move. I call amendment 169A, in the name of Rachel Hamilton. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I think that this is appropriate time to take a short break. We will resume at 11.30. I call amendment 229, in the name of Rachel Hamilton. Group with amendment 170 and 31. Rachel Hamilton to move amendment 229 and speak to all amendments in the group. As I have discussed before, convener, the exception for environmental benefit, I have been quite vocal on this particular issue, as was mentioned in the previous session last week and some of the previous amendments that I have spoken to today. This specifically talks about the environmental benefit exception to situations where the use of dogs, whether two dogs or more than two dogs, under the licence whether it is part of the scheme. Again, I want to reiterate that I believe that this is unnecessarily burdened, some given that land managers often undertake pest control to protect and enhance wildlife. Why should they have to come up with a scheme? What amounts to a scheme is not defined in the bill, it is not clear from the evidence sessions and from the documents accompanying the bill that the scheme is currently conceived of in terms of the work of all the bodies responsible for delivering the licensing schemes. If the land manager wants to use two dogs for environmental purposes, that should possibly be part of the scheme. If they wish to use more than two dogs, what amounts to a scheme in terms of a licence for environmental benefit? Surely it is sufficient that NatureScot is happy that the use of more than two dogs is necessary and that we will make a significant contribution to an environmental benefit. Time when we face again the points that I have made in previous sessions regarding biodiversity loss, which is so important right now as we are trying to meet climate change targets, I believe that people should be encouraged and supported within their wildlife management and assist in the nature recovery so that, if we want to reverse biodiversity loss and save iconic species, we must work with individuals who manage Scotland's wildlife at no cost to the public purse. The bill in its current form seems designed to make vital wildlife management harder, if not impossible, in many situations, and therefore harming farmers and their livelihoods and wildlife and not to mention the welfare of livestock. I want me to move that amendment, convener. Thank you. The minister to speak to amendment 170 and the other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Amendment 170 is a technical amendment that I move in my name. The exception under section 7, as has just been discussed, allows dogs to be used to control wild mammals for purposes that have an environmental benefit. Section 72A of the bill is currently drafted and allows a person to use up to two dogs or more than two dogs under licence to search for stock or flush wild mammals, and that for the purpose of preserving, protecting or restoring a particular species. My amendment 170 inserts the word for environmental benefit at the end of this part of the bill. Without this amendment, it would be possible for a person to use two dogs to manage wild mammals for the purposes of protecting a particular species, even if that would not amount to or result in an environmental benefit. The amendment is required to make clear that the preservation, protection or restoration of a species must have an environmental benefit attached to it, and it is again about consistency of expression. Amendment 229, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, I will not be supporting this amendment. The reason for the inclusion of the word scheme in this section of the bill is because I believe that where dogs are being used to control wild mammals for environmental benefit, it should be done as part of a specific objective, as part of an overall plan and not on an ad hoc basis. I think that this is important for the purposes of this section, but equally because it is linked to licences that can be given under this basis. I think that we must require a person to have a plan before allowing the dogs to control wild mammals. Similarly, it is linked to amendment 31. Likewise, I cannot support it, and this of course is Rachel Hamilton's amendment requiring a definition of a scheme, although I note not suggesting one. Where a term is not specifically defined in the bill, it will rely on its ordinary meaning. A scheme means a plan, a design, a programme of action, and it is not necessary, I do not think, to include a definition in the bill, where the word simply takes on its ordinary meaning. However, the explanatory notes that accompany the bill set out that the requirement for a scheme means that the activity has to be planned and designed for one of the subsection 2 purposes. This could be anything from the larger-scale projects that we discussed last week with the Stoats on Orkney, for example, or an individual gamekeeper planning a deer cull. However, for any stakeholders who would like more clarity, it is my intention that further information about what constitutes a scheme for the purpose of applying for a licence under this exception will be set out in licensing guidance which will be produced should the bill be passed. That information would be read across to the use of the exception without a licence, i.e. using up to two dogs. For those reasons, I would ask Rachel Hamilton not to press those amendments. I invite any other members to speak to the amendments in this group. Rachel Hamilton to wind up and press or withdraw. Just on the minister's amendment 170, I agree that it clarifies that preserving, protecting or restoring species through controlling species predators can also be for environmental benefit. I believe that they are in a similar vein to my amendments in this group. It is vital that we do acknowledge the environmental benefits that can be conferred by allowing predators to be controlled in a suitable manner. I would therefore urge other committee members to vote for this amendment. I am certainly supportive of that. On the minister's comments regarding what constitutes a scheme, I welcome that within the planning and design of the guidance she will seek to look at the clarity of what constitutes a scheme within that licensing guidance. That is very welcome. I will press my amendment because I believe that it is important to have that particular point on the face of the bill. The question is that amendment 229 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, but we are division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand. Now, those members not supporting the amendment, please raise your hand. Those members who wish to abstain, please raise your hand. The result of the vote is two, four, seven again, three abstentions. The amendment therefore is not agreed. Amendment 170, in the name of the minister, is already debated with amendment 229. The question is that amendment 170 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. I call amendment 31 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 229. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move? Moved. The question is that amendment 31 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 who wish to abstain. The result of the vote is two, four, seven again, three abstentions. The amendment therefore is not agreed. I call amendment 127 in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 35. Colin Smyth, to move or not move? On behalf of Colin Smyth, moved. The question is that amendment 127 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 who wish to abstain. The result of the vote is three, four, six against zero abstentions. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 147 in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 35. Colin Smyth, to move or not move? On behalf of Colin Smyth, moved. The question is that amendment 147 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, please raise your hand. Now, those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is two, four, seven against zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 15 in the name of Ariane Burgess, already debated with amendment 9. Ariane Burgess, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 15 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 against the amendment, those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is two, four, seven against zero abstentions. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 16 in the name of Ariane Burgess, already debated with amendment 9. Ariane Burgess, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 16 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 of the vote is two, four, seven against zero abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 17 in the name of Ariane Burgess, already debated with amendment 9. Ariane Burgess, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 17 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand. Now, those members not supporting the amendment, those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is two, four, seven against zero abstentions. The amendment therefore is not agreed. I call amendment 200 in the name of Beatrice Wishart, already debated with amendment 194. Beatrice Wishart, to move or not move. Amendment 200 is not moved. I call amendment 128 in the name of Colin Smith, already debated with amendment 69. Colin Smith, to move or not to move. The question is that amendment 128 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 of the vote is two, four, seven against zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 32 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 69. I remind members that if amendment 32 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 129 and 230. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 32 be agreed to. Are we 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 of the vote is two, four, seven against zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 129 in the name of Colin Smith, already debated with amendment 69. Colin Smith, to move or not move. On behalf of Colin Smith and in light of the minister's comments to work on this ahead of stage 3, not moved. Amendment 129 is not moved. I call amendment 230 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 69. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 230 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, raise your hand now. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of that vote is two, four, seven against zero abstentions. The amendment is not agreed. I call amendment 39 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 69. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 39 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 of that vote is two, four, seven against zero abstentions. The amendment is not agreed. I call amendment 201 in the name of Beatrice Wishart, already debated with amendment 194. Beatrice Wishart, to move or not move. Not moved, convener. Amendment 201 has not been moved. The question is that section 7 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 171 in the name of Jim Fairlie, already debated with amendment 9. Jim Fairlie, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 171 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 103. The question is that amendment 171 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not. 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 of the vote is seven, four, one against one abstention. The amendment has been agreed to. I call amendment 103 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 9. Edward Mountain, to move or not move. Not moved, convener. The question is that amendment 103 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. Beatrice, we missed your vote there. I'll run the vote again. We didn't see an indication. 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 of the vote is two, four, six against one abstention. The amendment therefore has not been agreed to. I call amendment 231 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 9. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. Move, convener. The question is amendment 231 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. And those members wishing to abstain, please raise your hand. The result of the vote is two, four, seven against zero abstentions. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 232 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 9. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 232 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, and the result of the vote is two, four, seven against the amendment, zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 33 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 9. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 33 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, raise your hand now. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is two, four, seven against zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 233 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 9. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 233 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. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is two, four, seven against zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. Do it again. For amendment 171, I abstained, but I would have supported. I don't think that we can change the vote, but you have that on the record. I call amendment 34 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 9. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 34 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 of the vote is two, four, seven against zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 171, just for the record. I know that you can't change the vote, but I would have abstained. I call amendment 172 in the name of Jim Fairlie, already debated with amendment 9. Jim Fairlie, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 172 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, raise your hand now. The result of the vote is six, four, zero against three abstentions. The amendment has been agreed. I call amendment 130 in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 9. Colin Smyth, to move or not move. On behalf of Colin Smyth, moved. The question is that amendment 130 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. The result of the vote is two, four, seven against zero abstentions. The amendment has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 234 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 9. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 234 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 of the vote is two, four, seven against zero abstentions. The amendment has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 235 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 9. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 235 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. The result of the vote is two, four, seven against zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 173 in the name of Jim Fairlie, already debated with amendment 9. Jim Fairlie to move or not move. The question is that amendment 173 be agreed to. Are we 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 of the vote is six, four, zero against three abstentions. The amendment has been agreed. I call amendment 236 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 9. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 236 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. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is three, four, six against zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 18 in the name of Ariane Burgess, already debated with amendment 9. Ariane Burgess to move or not move. The question is that amendment 18 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 of the vote is two, four, seven against zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 62 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 131. Edward Mountain to move or not move. The question is that amendment 62 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. The result of the vote is two, four, seven against zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 104 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 9. Edward Mountain to move or not move. The question is that amendment 104 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. The result of the vote is two, four, seven against zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 105 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 9. Edward Mountain to move or not move. I am not moving at this stage because I did not understand the minister's answer. Thank you. Amendment 105 not moved. I call amendment 106 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 9. Edward Mountain to move or not move. Not moved for the same reason. Amendment 106 is not moved. I call amendment 19 in the name of Ariane Burgess, already debated with amendment 9. Ariane Burgess to move or not move. The question is that amendment 19 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 of the vote is two, four, seven against zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 20 in the name of Ariane Burgess, already debated with amendment 9. Ariane Burgess to move or not move. The question is that amendment 20 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 of the vote is two, four, seven against zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 107 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 9. Edward Mountain to move or not move. Not move, convener, because it is a consequential amendment to an amendment that has already been rejected. Amendment 107 has not been moved. Bear with me a second. I call amendment 174 in the name of Christine Grahame, grouped with amendments in the name of Edward Mountain, to move amendment 174 and to speak to all amendments in the group. On behalf of Christine Grahame, I move amendment 174. Rachael Hamilton to speak to amendment 174A and other amendments in the group. Obviously, there is a very good reason that Christine Grahame is not here to speak to her amendment. I would have liked to have heard what she had to say, but on the basis that she is not, my amendment amends Christine Grahame's amendment on the laying of assent. The inclusion of the term reckless and amendment 174 is excessively restrictive and unhelpful. It would adversely affect any type of hunting ascent, much so that it may not be possibly legal to lay assent for dogs to follow with every confidence that they will not stray off that ascent, reckless is a term that could be utilised and abused by anti-hunting or anti-shooting organisations easily. If that term is removed, I would be very happy to support the rest of Christine Grahame's amendment, but she is not here to answer that, so that is slightly unfortunate. Amendments 237 and 238 addressed trail hunting in this bill more broadly, and I struggled to find any examples in legislation or the history of legislation where it is proposed that a lawful activity should be banned on the basis that it might be used as a cover for any unlawful activity. Those amendments reflect that and would remove the proficient for an outright ban on trail hunting. Section 12 would therefore not be necessary, so amendment 238 would remove that. It is also surprising that the penalty for an offence under this part of the bill be set at the same level as that for the most serious welfare and wildlife crime offences. That seems disproportionate and fails to recognise the fundamental difference in the gravity of the offences. Do you want me to move my amendments? Can you move them? No, no, there is no need for you to move them. Any other members wish to speak to this group? I am grateful to Christine Grahame for bringing forward this amendment 174, because I think that it strengthens this section of the bill by placing a greater responsibility on those following cents. I therefore will not be supporting amendment 174A in the name of Rachel Hamilton, which would narrow the scope of amendment 174, nor will I be supporting amendment 237 or 238 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, because I am concerned that they could create a loophole for trail hunting. I would like to speak in favour of Christine Grahame's amendment 174. Trail hunting was invented in England after the Hunting Act came in in 2004. It provides a loophole for hunting with packs to continue. Police Scotland told the committee that, if trail hunting were illegalised, it would certainly limit the opportunity for fox hunting. The Government is right to preemptively ban it by making trail hunting an offence, but we also need to be alive to the potential loopholes, in the exception for training a dog to follow an animal-based scent for a lawful purpose. Christine Grahame's amendment 174 would ensure that anyone training dogs to follow a scent would need to take precautions and not allow the dog to pursue wild mammal. Further, they must not allow themselves to act recklessly, that is, not to get into a situation where they might foreseeably lose control of the dog, even if accidentally. It is crucial to ensure that the ban on trail hunting is fit for purpose and that it is crucial to help to put an end to hunting with packs of dogs. I call the minister to speak to other amendments in the group. I wish Christine Grahame well, and I would like to speak to her amendment in its substance, because I know that she will want to catch up with what is being discussed today. While I support the principle behind amendment 174, I very much understand Christine Grahame's desire to be vigilant in avoiding a loophole whereby those who wish to continue illegal hunting will use drag hunting as a cover. I have some reservations about the amendment as posed. First, the wording relating to reckless conduct spoken to by Rachel Hamilton is misaligned with the rest of the bill, something that goes to the heart of what we are seeking to avoid. Moreover, regulating the use of dogs to find and follow a non-animal based scent, including human scents, was not included in the bill, as it does not directly or indeed indirectly involve the use of dogs to hunt wild mammal, which of course is the core purpose of the bill. Unlike trail hunting, we do not have evidence to suggest that drag hunting is being used as a cover for illegal hunting. Neither do we have evidence that wild mammals are being accidentally chased or killed during the course of drag hunting, although yet you might say that. I think that that speaks to some of what the other members contributed. I understand the concerns that if the bill is passed, people intent on illegal hunting may try and use drag hunting as a cover. I agree that we cannot rule that out entirely, although we hope not to be the case. However, as the bill is drafted, if a person is undertaking drag or clean-boot hunting, as it is sometimes called, and allows their dog to chase or kill a wild mammal without taking reasonable steps to prevent that happening, they will have committed an offence under section 1 of the bill. Weighing all that up and in conclusion, although I cannot support Christine Grahame's amendment 174 today, we and I will continue to keep the subject matter, the potential risks and the possible solutions under review as we move towards stage 3. Ms Grahame and I discussed last week that we would meet before stage 3 to discuss her other amendments, and I would propose to discuss that matter with her then. Briefly, if I can, convener, amendments 237 and 238 in Rachel Hamilton's name. Section 11 of the bill creates the new offence relating to trail hunting, and section 12 provides an exception to that. Rachel Hamilton's amendment 237 would remove section 11 with the effect that trail hunting would not be prohibited. As I have set out during various points of scrutiny over the bill, trail hunting poses a significant risk to wild mammals, and I would add that 70 per cent of respondents to our consultation supported a ban on trail hunting. We know that there are significant risks to animal welfare. Dogs that have been trained to follow an animal-based scent can be diverted from a laid trail on or near to a natural trail and start chasing and killing wild mammals. That is exactly what we want to stop. I would add in that regard that a ban on trail hunting is supported by animal welfare groups, including the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission and the Scottish SPCA. We have the other reason for pursuing a ban being that we know that it has emerged as a cover for illegal hunting in other countries. In that regard, I would point to Lord Bonomy in his report where he said that it is worthy of note that the way in which some mounted hunts now operate in Scotland and the practice by mountain hunts of trail hunting in England and Wales have both given rise to suspicion that organised mounted hunts have continued to hunt foxes with a path of hounds in contravention of the legislation. On the points about laying an animal-based scent for the dogs to follow and the point about training, I recognise that there are legitimate reasons why some people may need to lay an animal-based scent, for example, to train police dogs or dogs used to manage deer or search for invasive species. That is why the bill includes provisions for those activities to continue subject, of course, to the two dog limits and to other conditions. For all of the reasons that I stated, convener, I cannot support those amendments. If the minister is willing to take an intervention at this stage— Yes, I'm happy to. Thank you. No serious. Thank you very much. I'm grateful to the minister for taking the intervention. It was just on your remarks regarding amendment 174 from Christine Graham. Did I hear rightly that it's something that you'll look at out of stage 3 so that she might potentially bring it back at stage 3 or are you ruling out an amendment to this effect that if a person in the course of an activity of laying a scent allows the dog to hunt a wild mammal, that that would be specifically excluded within the bill? Thank you for the question. What I'm saying today is that I can't support this amendment as it stands. Between now and stage 3, I'd like the opportunity to consider the extent of the risk and, indeed, anything that could be done if we establish that there is a risk. I'd like to consider possible solutions and I can't commit to anything further than that today because that work still needs to be done. Christine Graham to wind up and press or withdraw. Thank you, convener. I too wish Christine Graham a speedy recovery. On Christine Graham's behalf, I thank the minister for her comments and also her willingness to meet with Christine Graham to discuss her other amendments and this one specifically prior to stage 3. Given that reason, I'm sure that Christine Graham would also appreciate the comments from the other members in the meeting. At this point, I will not move this amendment. The amendment is to be withdrawn. The member has indicated that he wishes to withdraw the amendment. Does any member have an objection? No objection. I call amendment 237, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 174. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 237 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise a hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is two for seven against zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 202, in the name of Beatrice Wishart, already debated with amendment 194. Beatrice Wishart, to move or not move. No, not moved, convener. Amendment 202 is not moved. I call amendment 238, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 174. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 238 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, please raise your hand now. Those members wishing to abstain. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is three for six against zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 175, in the name of the minister. Group with amendments is shown in the groupings. Minister, to move amendment 175 and speak to all other amendments in the group. Thanks, convener, and I move amendment 175 in my name. This amendment introduces powers for a constable to stop and search a person without warrant, where that constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has committed or is committing an offence under the bill. It includes powers for a constable to search or examine anything found in the course of a search and also to seize anything found in the course of a search. Section 7 of the protection of Wild Mammals Scotland Act 2002 allows for a constable where they have reasonable cause to suspect that a person has committed an offence, and that evidence of the offence under the 2002 act is to be found on that person to stop and search the person in question. Of course stopping search powers should not be conferred lightly, but, after reflecting on the comments made by the police during stage one and after considering the powers available to the police in other pieces of wildlife legislation, we consider it appropriate to include powers in the bill for the police to stop and search a person, and that on similar terms to the 2002 act. Amendments 177, 178 and 179 in my name change the test in the schedule for a constable to enter a premises from where that constable has reasonable grounds for believing that a relevant offence has been committed to one where they have reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant offence has been committed. Section 13 of the bill introduces the schedule, which makes the provision about the powers for constables. Currently there are powers for constables to enter premises together with the powers associated with entry, including search and seizure. Those amendments make the minor adjustments to the schedule so that the wording of the tests for entry and seizure of items are consistent with the wording for stop and search powers. I can move on to speak to other members. Sorry, you have explained that you want to substitute believing to suspecting. I just need to understand why. I understand you want to do it, but I do not understand why. Exactly, as I said in the last point, it is to have a consistency of the language with the stop and search powers that we are introducing, and the stop and search powers introduced mirror that of the 2002 act. I am sorry, convener. Will the minister take an intervention on that? Are you introducing or have you introduced? You are bringing something new in here, or is this to reflect that something is already in place? If you are bringing something new in here to reflect what you might be doing in the future, I have a little bit of concern about if that is the right way to do legislation. The stop and search powers, which was the first amendment that I brought in, would be new. I am bringing them in on the basis of evidence from the police at stage one, and I am bringing them in to line with the 2002 act. The second suite of amendments that I am introducing is changing that point about believing to suspecting. That is about ensuring that they were already in the bill, and that is about ensuring that there is a consistency of language with the new stop and search powers, which I am proposing that I voted on today. I am still not clear that I understand the difference between believing and suspecting, but maybe I could be informed afterwards, rather than waste the committee's time. I have a lot of questions relating to those amendments. Thank you. 175, on making it possible to stop and search without a warrant, are you able to outline how typical is that across Scottish Government legislation? Is this quite standard? Is this exceptional? What has led you to this decision? At first glance, it sounds like it could be a little bit heavy-handed and exploited. That is why I said that we would not confer stop and search powers lightly. However, a couple of points are there. The first is that this is consistent with other wildlife legislation, and I am happy to provide you with examples of that afterwards, if that would be helpful to give you a bit of peace of mind. Equally, I am just looking in my notes because I am just looking for the evidence of Detective Telford, where I think that he stayed at stage 1. Yes, we are just looking for a bit of clarity around that. As there is nothing in the bill at present, the powers that are afforded by the Protection of Wild Mammals Scotland Act 2002 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the other wildlife crime legislation are really effective. That legislation affords us the power to search persons, which is key in gaining evidence of offences. To go back to hair coursing, for example, that power allows us to take people's phones in order to get potential evidence, such as footage, from them. We hope that the powers that we will be afforded in this bill will be similar to those in current legislation, and that is referring exactly to stop and search powers. Sorry, could you direct comments through the chair to make it easier for the official report rather than a conversation across the committee room? I appreciate that. Sorry. Would I be able to ask a follow-up question? If you wish to intervene, would the minister take an additional intervention? I was wondering if you could outline your understanding of the Scottish Government's understanding of the difference between believing and suspecting. I think that I would follow up with you on that. The reason that I think that this is important and the reason that I have asked the committee to support it today is because I am conscious that we are introducing that new power with stop and search, and I want a consistency of language between that new stop and search power, if it is included, and the powers of seizure. That is why I am asking the committee to support it today, but I can certainly come back with anything that you would like about the difference between the two believing, suspecting. I will move on now, if you do not mind, to amendments 40 to 56 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, which will remove the ability of the court to make a deprivation order in relation to any horse used in or present at the commission on offence. Deprivation and disqualification orders can only be granted when a person is convicted of the offence in relation to hunting with dogs or trail hunting, and therefore apply to a dog or a horse used in or present at the commission of the offence. In that regard, the bill makes similar provision to the existing disqualification orders under the 2002 act, in section 9. The rationale for including horses within the scope of death privation orders is to ensure that anyone who is convicted of a relevant offence is deprived of the tools that were used in the commission of that offence, and the intention is to limit the ability to re-offend, as well as to act as a deterrent to unlawful activities under the bill. I should be clear that we have not singled out the use of horses. The schedule on the bill on enforcement powers allows for the seizure of vehicles to provide evidence of the commission of an offence, and such a vehicle may be forfeited in accordance with part 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Scotland Act 1995. If a person uses a quad bike or similar vehicle, there is also a route for that to be forfeited. Of course, horses and dogs are explicitly mentioned in the bill because they are sentient beings, and we believe that additional safeguards were required when making orders to remove them. I will move on to amendments 192, 193, in the name of Arianne Burgess. I agree with Ms Burgess that the welfare of a horse or a dog should clearly be an important factor for the court when considering imposing a deprivation order. Therefore, I very much support the principle of this amendment. However, I just like to take the opportunity to ensure that it works alongside other provisions for the operation of deprivation orders more generally. If the member was agreeable, convener, I would like to ask her not to press this today, but to work with her ahead of stage 3 on an amendment to her effect. Amendment 108, in the name of Edward Mountain, restricts the use of deprivation orders so that they can only be applied when the court is satisfied that it is necessary to prevent the future use of the dogs in the commission of an offence. I think that that is an unworkably high bar for the court, and we all have to ask ourselves how the court would know if the dog or the horse will be used in an offence in the future. It also restricts the court's discretion in the circumstances as to when a deprivation order could be made and, as I suppose, as an aside, it creates inconsistency whereby the requirement does not apply to other uses of deprivation orders. For example, dogs seized in badger baiting do not be supporting those amendments for that reason. Finally, convener, amendment 109, in the name of Edward Mountain, I believe that this amendment is section 17 of the bill to limit the period for which a disqualification order may be granted to 18 months for a first conviction, three years for a second and for a third conviction such period as the court may determine. Again, we are getting into the territory of unnecessarily unjustifiably fettering the discretion of the court when they will be considering the appropriate period of time in which a disqualification order should take effect. There may be circumstances in which a long period should be able to be made by the courts, and that, in light of all the circumstances, I would not want to impinge on that, so I cannot support that amendment, but I move amendment 175. Rachel Hamilton speaks to amendment 40 and other amendments in the group. Thank you. Amendment 40 and 56, as the minister has referred to, remove reference to horses in this particular instance in relation to the deprivation order. Whilst it would be fair to say that dogs are an essential ingredient of the offence of hunting a wild mammal using a dog, it would not be fair to say that horses, if a horse can be the subject of a deprivation order, then why not a quad bike or for those on foot at this particular section of the bill? This inconsistency has, I believe, not been addressed by the minister despite her trying to reassure members of the committee that the schedule provides for seizure of vehicles that is in another part of the bill, and therefore that is inconsistent. There has been no explanation for the inclusion of horses in this section of the bill or the exclusion of quad bikes or footwear, for that matter, has been given. I fail to see any justification for the inclusion of horses and therefore seek to remove reference to them in the bill with those amendments. Just on the point of, I would like to make a comment on the minister's amendment 175, she says that there is evidence from Police Scotland, but there was only opinion from Billy Telford, not evidence where police powers are concerned. I would be grateful if the minister could reference that particular point of evidence that she is citing. The other question that I would like to ask the minister is whether a deprivation order includes the prevention of possession, sale, transport or animal in that particular situation. Annan Burgess, to speak to amendment 192 and other amendments in the group. My amendments 192 and 193 are straightforward. They simply add that if a court convicts a person of a relevant offence and makes a deprivation order or a seizure order, which affects the person's dog or horse, then any so-called disposal of that dog or horse must take into account the need to ensure its welfare. I did not lodge amendments adding this requirement to the destruction option because section 16 and 18 already state that a court cannot order the destruction of a dog or horse unless it is satisfied on evidence provided by a veterinary surgeon that destruction would be in the interests of the animal. However, I would like to note on record that it is appalling that activities such as fox hunting may feasibly result in destruction being in the best interests of a dog or horse and that those activities are able to continue. However, I thank the minister for offering to work with me at stage 3 to ensure that my amendments to the deprivation and seizure order sections work alongside other deprivation seizure orders, so I will not move my amendments and look forward to working with the minister at stage 3. Edward Mountain to speak to amendment 108 and other amendments in the group. Thank you convener. I'm somewhat disappointed that Ariane's bird is not going to move her amendment because it's perhaps one that I would agree with and let me explain why. It's because when a dog or a horse is taken out to create to undertake an illegal activity, it's not the horse's choice or the dog's choice, it is the individual's choice. In fact, the horse has no choice when you put a saddle on it and a bridle and take it out to ride. In very exceptional circumstances you have no control of it, but in most circumstances you will have control of it, but the horse cannot say it doesn't want to go and nor can the dog for that matter, so the argument that dogs because they've been used for badger baiting are automatically bad. I would actually disagree with that. I would say that the owner is bad and it is the sentient animal that doesn't have a choice. I was actually surprised by the minister's wish or statement that she was unable to support my amendments because my amendments seem to me want to bring some reasonableness into the argument of what to do with the horse or the dog if a deprivation order is going to be put in. I believe that it needs to be a high bar put in place to make sure that the animal isn't removed. For the very same reason that Ariane Burgess says, I don't want to see those animals, horses or dogs to be destroyed for no particular reason. I also brought in the second amendment for the simple reason that I am a firm believer in rehabilitation and not purely retribution, which is why I would like to see timescales placed on the ability of an owner to get their horse or dog back. In the same way that we do when people create and undertake that heinous crime, in my opinion of dangerous driving, they are given a chance to get their licence back at a later stage. We should allow that person, in the case of a dog, to get their licence back. However, what you are saying in this act is that they might never get the chance to get that animal back or to have a dog in the future. I think that that is cruel when people look to their dogs and love their dogs and it is perhaps that they have learned from their lessons. I think that that is wrong. I think that it is interesting that the Minister compares the ability to remove a quad or a car from when an offence is committed. Cars are seldom removed for drink driving. It is up to the driver to dispose of it. In fact, the driver can hold on to that car and keep it in the garage until they get their licence back. However, what you are suggesting is that a dog and a horse should be removed. For those reasons, I think that this is retribution rather than rehabilitation, which is why I have placed my amendments in. It is why I would ask this committee to really consider very carefully the effects of removing somebody's pets, which may have been misused improperly, but could be used properly and loved in the future. I make a very strong plea on this because I think that we are going the wrong way round. With regard to amendments 175 to 179 in the name of Minister Mary McCallan, I am not persuaded by the Minister's remarks today, but I appreciate her commitment to share further information. I am not sure whether that is for myself or the whole committee ahead of stage 3. On that basis, I would ask her not to press these amendments today so that we can vote once we have a full explanation in front of us. If the minister did press these amendments today, I would ask members not to support them. The amendments in my name are technical in nature. They essentially reproduce the police powers of enforcement that exist under the 2002 act. On the basis of evidence by Police Scotland at the committee that I was able to narrate to the committee earlier, I mentioned that I support, in principle, Ariane Burgess in seeking to bolster animal welfare during the forfeiture of horses and dogs. I look forward to working with her on that, but I do not support amendments that would fetter the discretion of the court in imposing deprivation orders and enlighten of Edward Mountain's comments on rehabilitation. I absolutely take that on board, but that is to be taken into account by the court. We are best placed to decide all that in light of the circumstances of the case. The point that I made about the evidence, I just asked, was it Billy Peezy-Billy Telford's opinion or was it evidence from Police Scotland just for the record? The detective was representing Police Scotland at this committee when he gave that evidence. I do not think that we would discount any other evidence that the committee has taken as only being opinion. It is evidence that is given to this committee and that it constitutes evidence. Can you cite that evidence now? I did read out what the detective said. So that was the actual evidence that you are citing? Right. Okay, thank you. Thank you. You have completed. Thank you minister. The question is that amendment 175 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, please raise your hand now. The result of the vote is five, four, two against, two abstentions. The amendment has been agreed. I call amendment 176 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 175. Minister to move formally. Moved, convener. The question is that amendment 176 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 of the vote is five, four, one against, three abstentions. The amendment has been agreed. The question is that amendment 176 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. 1707. We have just done that. We have just done that. My apologies. We have just agreed. Just be with me. Have we done that? Yeah, we have just done that. Okay. The question is, section 13 will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. 7, 178 a 179—all the name of the minister all previously debated with amendment 175. I invite the minister to move amendments 177 to 179 on block. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 177 to 179? No. If no member objects, the question is amendments 177 to 179 are agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendments, please raise their hand now. Those members not supporting the amendments, please raise their hand now. Those members wishing to abstain and the result of the vote is 5 for 2 against two abstentions. The amendment has been agreed. The question is that section 14—the question is that the section be agreed to a bigger pardon. The question is that the schedule be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 14 and 15 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 40 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 175. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 40 be agreed to. Are we 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. Those members wishing to abstain, please raise your hand. The result of the vote is 2 for 7 against two abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 41 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 175. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 41 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, please raise your hand now. Those members wishing to abstain, the result of the vote is 2 for 7 against zero abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 192 in the name of Ariane Burgess, already debated with amendment 175. Ariane Burgess, to move or not move. Amendment 192 is not moved. I call amendment 42 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 175. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 42 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those not supporting the amendment, those members abstaining. The result of the vote is 2 for 7 against zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 108 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 175. Edward Mountain, to move or not move. Yes, moved. The question is that amendment 108 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. The result of the vote is 2 for 6 against one abstention. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 43 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 175. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 43 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, please raise your hand now. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 2 for 7 against zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendments 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49, all in the name of Rachel Hamilton, and all previously debated with amendment 175, Rachel Hamilton, to move amendments 44 to 49 on block. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 44 to 49? The question is that amendment 44 to 49 are 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, please raise your hand now. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 2 for 7 against zero abstentions. The amendments have not been agreed. The question is that section 16 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 109 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 175. Edward Mountain, to move or not move. I am moved, convener. The question is that amendment 109 be agreed to. Are we 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. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 2 for 7 against zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. The question is that section 17 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 193 in the name of Arianne Burgess, already debated with amendment 175. Arianne Burgess, to move or not move. Not moved. Amendment 193 is not moved. The question is that section 18 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 19 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55 and 56, all in the name of Rachel Hamilton and all previously debated with amendment 175. Rachel Hamilton, to move on block. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 50 to 56? The question is that amendments 50 to 56 are agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendments, please raise their hand now. Those members not supporting the amendments and those members who wish to abstain. The result of the vote is 247 against zero abstention. The amendments have not been agreed. The question is that section 20 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 239 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, group with amendments 240 and 241. Rachel Hamilton, to move amendment 239 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you convener. Amendments 239 to 241 would address concerns shared by the Law Society of Scotland regarding the provisions to allow ministers to amend the act in the future or any enactment subject to positive resolution to the Parliament. It is felt that those powers are too extensive. The requirement for the affirmative procedure is that there is no substitute for full debate and scrutiny as applied to primary legislation. In the Law Society of Scotland's evidence committee, we heard that, at the very least, there should be some requirement for consultation. It was felt that the concern about the extent of ministerial powers sought was not properly reflected in the stage 1 report. My amendments would remove these ministerial powers to allow for proper debate to any further amendment to the bill. I move amendment 239 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, to speak to all members in the group. Thank you for the explanation of her amendments, which would ultimately amend the bill so that regulations could not modify any enactment, including the bill once passed. As with any body of law, the bill may give rise to the need for a range of ancillary provisions. The power contained in the bill is a standard provision, which is contained in many acts of the Scottish Parliament. It is not wide, as has been suggested. The power, in fact, is limited on the face of the bill in that the Scottish ministers will only be able to exercise it as they consider appropriate for the purposes of, in connection with or giving full effect to any provisions of the bill, and it is no wider than that. However, the power is necessary, for example, to ensure the smooth transition from the 2002 act to the new provisions of the bill, including, for example, by removing references to the 2002 act as they exist. As you can imagine, after 20 years, they are numerous. It will also allow Scottish ministers to make further changes should there be any unforeseen issues with the operation of the new legislation. Practically, without that power, it would be necessary to bring forward primary legislation every time to deal with technical, operational or implementation matters. I do not think that, albeit that it is not a decision for me to take, I do not think that that would be an effective use of Parliament's resources. It could also mean that the statute book was out of date while we waited for primary legislation to become available in order to make amendments. I would also highlight that section 21 requires regulations that add to replace or omit any part of an act to be subject, as Rachael Hamilton said, to affirmative procedure, which I think provides an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny and, of course, is typical of ancillary powers provisions. I would also highlight for the record that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee made no comments in relation to the inclusion of that power in the bill. I think that section 21 is important and I can't support those amendments. Thank you. Rachael Hamilton to a wind-up and press or withdraw. No further comments and press. The question is that amendment 239 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendments, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 247 against zero abstentions. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 240 in the name of Rachael Hamilton already debated with amendment 239. Rachael Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 240 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 of the vote is 247 against the amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 241 in the name of Rachael Hamilton already debated with amendment 239. Rachael Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 241 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. The result of the vote is 247 against zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. The question is that section 21 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 244 in the name of Rachael Hamilton already debated with amendment 113. Rachael Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 244 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. The result of the vote is 247 against zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 242 in the name of Rachael Hamilton already debated with amendment 113. Rachael Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 242 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. The result of the vote is 247 against zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. The question is that section 22 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 180 in the name of the minister group with amendments as shown in the groupings. Minister to move amendment 180 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thanks, convener. I move amendment 180. This group of amendments are technical. Amendment 180 refers to section 23 of the bill, which is drafted, deals with the repeal of the 2002 act. Amendment 180 will remove sections 232 and 3 of the bill. Those sections amend the statutory list of offences, which are subject to disclosure. We do that by replacing references to the Protection of Wild Mammals Scotland Act 2002 with references to offences under this bill. That is as it previously was drafted. However, since the introduction of the bill, there have been developments in bringing forward the changes made by the Disclosure Scotland Act 2020 to the list of offences. Regulations have been laid before Parliament and are due to come into force on 19 December, which will repeal and replace the provisions that are referred to in the bill in line with the changes that will be made by the Disclosure Act. As I mentioned, the provisions that were previously in sections 232 and 3 of the bill are no longer required owing to that separate legislative change. Amendments 182 to 190 are equally technical. They simply change nine references to Her Majesty in the bill to His Majesty, and they do not change the effect or meaning of any of the provisions in the bill. Amendment 180. The question is that amendment 180 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 181 in the name of the minister, group with amendment 57. Minister, to move amendment 181 and speak to all amendments in the group. I move amendment 181, which again is a technical amendment. Section 17 of the Animals and Wildlife Penalty Protection and Powers Scotland Act 2020 places an obligation on Scottish ministers to publish and lay before the Scottish Parliament, and that within five years of it coming into force, a report setting out an assessment of the steps that have been taken to ensure information sharing in relation to certain persons and the steps that the ministers are taking to further progress such information sharing. The persons that are to be the subject of the report include those who have been convicted of an offence under the Protection of Wild Mammals Scotland Act. My amendment 181 removes section 234A from the bill. That section removes the reference to the 2002 act in section 17 of the Animal and Wildlife Act. However, despite the fact that the bill will repeal the 2002 act, I now consider that the reference to it should remain. That is simply to ensure that the reporting requirements under the Animals and Wildlife Act capture any persons with previous convictions under the 2002 act, so we are just trying to ensure that there is continuity in that regard. I think that I moved 181, but if not, I will do that again. Just to speak to Rachel Hamilton's amendment 57, which, in my view, inserts a duty on the ministers to prepare a report to be published and laid before Parliament within one year of the commencement of section 1 of the bill, stating that this report must set out the impact of the act and the cultural heritage associated with the hunting with dogs and other points. I do not support that amendment as I do not believe that it is necessary or relevant for the Scottish Government to produce a report on the matters that are explicitly set out in the amendment. The Scottish Government, as a matter of course, will always seek to monitor and evaluate the impact of any new policies or legislation that is passed. However, that amendment would introduce a duty to report on things that I think are not within the remit of the bill. As we have discussed at length, the bill was introduced to address widespread concerns that foxes and other wild mammals are being hunted and killed by dogs in contravention of the 2002 act. Neither in this bill—sorry, there is nothing in this bill about cultural heritage associated with hunting with dogs—it is about preventing dogs from being used to kill and chase mammals, which of course has been illegal for 20 years. Animal welfare legislation, such as the Animal Health and Welfare Scotland Act 2006, ensures that the health and welfare of protected animals, including dogs, is insured. As part of the process of developing the bill, the Scottish Government undertook all of the statutory impact assessments, including an equality impact assessment and a business regulatory assessment, which I think should give Rachel Hamilton some comfort on some of the issues that she raises. However, for those reasons, I will not be supporting those amendments. Rachel Hamilton, to speak to amendment 57 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener, and thank you to the minister for her comments as well. I believe that the duty to report is an important aspect of all legislation. I would hope that the minister would agree that there could be significant impact of the reform of the act on, as she says, not things that are specifically within the remit of the bill but are a consequence of the reform of the bill. Whilst I have reflected, and I am looking at this as it could be overly prescriptive, I believe that there could be an impact on the things that I have stated within the amendment itself. For example, there could be an impact on jobs and livelihood, there could be an impact on biodiversity loss, there might be a negative environmental consequences. I do not think that we should underestimate the impact that there could have on the cultural heritage as well. However, I agree that it could be overly prescriptive. I will be bringing this back at stage 3. I am going to withdraw it at this stage, if I may say that now, convener, and reconsider it on the basis that the minister has stated that the impact will be considered within the business regulatory impact assessment or the statement. I thank the minister for her comments. Thank you. You will have the opportunity not to move the amendment later on. Any other members wish to speak to this group? I hope that members will agree that my amendment is necessary and that we support it. I have listened carefully to what Rachael Hamilton has said today. I absolutely agree with monitoring and reporting, but, as I said, it is not on issues that are not connected with the purpose of the bill, so I cannot support that. The question is that amendment 181 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. The question is that section 23 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. Amendment 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189 and 190, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated with amendment 180. Ministers, to move amendments 182 to 190 on block. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 182 to 190? No. The question is that amendments 182 to 190 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Do we have a no? Okay, that we are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supported the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members who wish to abstain, please raise your hand now. The result of the vote is 8 for 0 against 1 abstention. The amendments have been agreed. The question is that section 25 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. Amendment 57, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 181. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. Amendment 57 is not moved. The question is that section 36 and 26 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that the long title be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. That ends stage 2 consideration of the bill. We will very briefly suspend to allow the minister and her assistants to leave and we will continue in private.