 Fy wneud bod y bydd ym bob arwadau ym gradd. Mae'n cymdeinidol ar Ym Mwnaer I MWM ond Gwyddoch, y bydd o Gymru. Rydw i'n fawr i'r trefeydd a'r bydd a'r bydd. Mae'r cymdeinidol â'r byd o'r bydd. Mae'n cymdeinidol â'r bydd, o'r mwyaf'r gynlluniaeth ym Mwm Mwneud, Cymdeinidol ar ym Mwm Mwneud. Mae'n fawr i'r biteshau sy'n cymdeinidol ar y Cymdeinidol o'r bydd o Gwyddoch, Wonderful to be at my thanks to the rural affairs and natural environment committee for the consideration scrutiny of the bill and all those who gave extensive evidence at stage 1. It has been 20 years since the Scottish Parliament passed the protection of the wild mammals Scotland act, and we became part 1 of the United Kingdom to ban the use of dogs to chase and kill wild mammals for sport. As a country it was at that point that we decided it was unacceptable llawer o brinwyol ac yn gynyddu. Ond nid yn cael gwaith y lleol ac mae'n gyntaeth i fynd i'w ddweud eich sicrhau gynhyrchu yn gwneud i fynd i'r byw, ond mae eich eu bod gyntoedd behalol i'r bullwll llawer o brinwydau cyfreinfaeth ac yn gwneud i'r berthuffydd pob gwelwch, unrhyw i'w brydu llawer o bwysigh ddechrau, ond mae'n buschu penderfynifol? Bim y cyfrorth o'r ddweud i drwng i ddechrau dw i amddangos i ddigonu gyda'r perthwyddemol i ddelch yn ddigonu kidsЯ. A hefyd, mae'n mynd i ddigonu, i ddigonu, i ddigonu a gydfeithio'r pethau, i ddigonu, oherwydd mae'n ddegonu i ddigonu lleiddoi cysylltu o'i gaeligol. Unrhyw bryd i ddigonu errrodd gan i ddigonu, ac i ddigonu eu ddigonu, oherwydd mae'n yn edrych wedi cael, yn roi ddigonu'r pethu i ddigonu o'i gaeligol. second, mae'n cymdeithasol eich hunig, ond mae nid yn gweld i'n ddylai'r eich myfyrdd, yn ystod, ac mae'n ddweud i'ch ddifrwyngau y dyfodol i chi i gyda'r byw. Fyelch yna, Llyr Bonymaidd yw y gallu'r ffordd o'r ffordd o'r ffordd ym hynny'n fyddi'r ddechrau i'r byw, mae'n ddifyrdd i ddim yn gennym, ond yn y gwybwysau o'r ffordd o'r ffordd o'r ffordd o'r ffordd o'r hunts are killed by hounds. The bill therefore takes, as it's starting point, the need to address issues identified by Lord Bonomy. We've corrected deficiencies of the past, we have worked to prevent future deficiencies from opening and we've done all of that in pursuit of the highest possible animal welfare standards. However, as we seek to tackle legal hunting, we must be clear about the need for farmers, land managers, conservationists and environmental groups to continue having access to legitimate and legal control methods to protect livestock and ground nesting birds, to manage deer, to tackle invasive species and bearing in mind Police Scotland also used dogs to detect evidence of wildlife crime. All of those are legitimate purposes for which dogs are used in our rural nation. The bill has been designed to balance the safe, considerate and appropriate use of dogs in permitted circumstances with the need to stop illegal hunting. Where there is suspicion of illegal activity, the bill will make it easier for the police and the current office to detect, investigate and prosecute. The provisions of the bill... Yes, happy to. Thank you. I'm most grateful to the work that the minister has done in meeting with me and representatives of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association. Could I ask the minister to accept that so far as their work is concerned and their members and the PAX associations in using dogs to control foxes, that there have been few, if any, complaints about that aspect of the work? Will the minister confirm that the licensing regime is one that will be flexible and will allow this good work to continue without unreasonable impairment, cost or complications? Thank you for the question. Indeed, I have met him and the Scottish Gamekeepers Association as I have met with interested bodies across the spectrum. There is evidence that the bill, as it stood, was not operating appropriately. There is evidence of that as regard mounted hunts and as regards foot packs. I think that there were instances where FLS had concerns and indeed the League Against Cruel Sports had evidence where they think that the rules were being contravened. As regards the licence, I'll come on. I think that we'll hear a lot about that today. For my opinion, the licence is an exception to an exception. It is to be available in exceptional circumstances, but it has to be available owing to some of what Bonomy identified about. Yes, happy to. I thank the minister for that. The licensing regime that she touched on to allow for the use of more than two dogs in specific circumstances is absolutely essential. I'm sure that she would agree with that. In areas such as the one that I represent, if we want to protect endangered ground-nesting birds as well as livestock, but it is equally imperative that the scheme is workable and practicable. To that end, I seek at this point an undertaking from the minister that it will have direct input to its creation from land managers. I'm thinking specifically about gamekeepers here, noting the very constructive way in which the Scottish Gamekeepers Association have engaged in this particular point. Minister, I'll give you some of that time back. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Yes, I'm happy to give that undertaking, because it's been important to me from the start, and it continues to be important that those who are affected by the legislation that we would seek to pass are engaged in the development of it. Stakeholders have been very thoroughly engaged up until this point. They will continue to be as the guidance that will accompany the bill is developed. Equally, at committee, NatureScot said that they would continue to work with stakeholders once the guidance is in place to make sure that their quote is that it does as it says on the tin. Presiding Officer, if I can return to my remarks, the provisions in this bill are the result of many years of work. Lord Bonamage's review, the widespread engagement that I have mentioned with land management and animal welfare stakeholders and, indeed, to public consultations. Whilst the bill broadly replicates the provisions of the 2002 act, it makes certain important modifications that I'll try to outline quickly just now. Firstly, the bill addresses the concerns with the language of the act, by unambiguously setting out the purposes for which dogs can be used. The bill also introduces a two-dog limit for that lawful activity of searching for and stalking and flushing wild animals. I'll take one more. Rachael Hamilton. Does the minister recognise that Lord Bonamage has said that using two dogs could seriously compromise effective pest control? Yes, I do acknowledge that. I also acknowledge Lord Bonamage's comments where he said—I'm not quoting because I don't have it in front of me—that the addition of the licensing scheme was what made the two-dog limit workable. He said that they work together, and he said that actually keeping the licensing scheme restricted was also a good idea. I hope that the member, as other members, will recognise that the Scottish Government, in introducing the two-dog limit, plus—I'm still answering the point from your colleague—the two-dog limit plus the licensing scheme together represent the finest possible balance between those competing interests. Thank you for taking the intervention. On that point, the licensing is absolutely critical to whether the bill is going to fulfil what it sets out to achieve. So why is it that, in your response to the committee, you suggested that it's not until after this bill may be passed that you actually lay the information, lay out what that license might be? Through the chair, please, Mr Carson Minister. A member of Finlay Carson's tenure would surely understand that the Government cannot produce guidance that accompanies the bill until they know the final form of the bill. We are committed to continuing to engaging with stakeholders through the development of the legislation. The legislation sets out the framework for the licensing scheme, the guidance bill accompanies it, and stakeholders will be involved. However, I cannot know the form of the bill until it is passed at stage 3, but I will continue trying to make some progress now, Presiding Officer. I will do that with reference to some points from the committee report. Firstly, I am very pleased that the committee agreed with the general principles of the bill. Their report raised a number of important points, which I have addressed in my written remarks, and I will not rehearse them here. However, I just wanted to touch on the licensing scheme. I am clear that it is an exception to an exception. It must be construed narrowly and available only where other options are not available. However, I am equally clear that, when farmers, land managers and environmental groups, when they find themselves in those very circumstances, the scheme must be available, it must be workable and it must be sensible. Me and my officials in NatureScot will continue to engage with stakeholders throughout the passage of the bill and during the implementation phase to develop and to refine the scheme. In the time that I have left, I would also like to briefly mention the issue of rough shooting. Those have been raised with me during the latter stages of stage 1, and while I have tried to give a definitive view on the treatment of rough shoots when asked, it has soon become clear to me that people have very different views on what constitutes a rough shoot. That is inherent in the name—it is a loose and informal term. My officials and I have been working, particularly since I appeared at committee, to better understand the various permutations of a rough shoot and how they are treated under the bill. For today's purposes, I can say that it is clear that there are circumstances where what is regarded as a rough shoot could operate within the bill. For example, where one person uses their own two dogs to flush their own quarry, not working in proximate or with others in pursuit of the same quarry and not allowing other dogs to join with them. However, there are activities that have been put to me as rough shooting that would not be permissible under the bill. For example, a gamekeeper uses five dogs to flush wild mammals to be shot by paying customers, but it is a broad term and it is impossible to treat it singularly. I will listen to views that are shared on that today. I will keep working with members in advance of stage 2. By way of conclusion, I was pleased to hear Lord Bonomy's comments during his committee session, where he said that he considers this bill to be a very well crafted piece of legislation that solves the problem of the loose and variable use of language and should be a great incentive for better enforcement of the law. I very much look forward to hearing members' contributions today. I will be listening closely and with that I move that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Hunting with Dogs Scotland Bill. Indeed, Minister, before inviting the next speaker, I would like to give a gentle encouragement to those who have not already pressed their buttons. We do want to speak in the debate to do so now, and I call on Finlay Carson on behalf of the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee for around eight minutes. As convener of the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, I am pleased to speak to the committee stage 1 report on Hunting with Dogs Scotland Bill today. Allow me to begin by thanking everyone who was involved in the inquiry, particularly my clerks, SPICE and all the individuals and organisations who provided evidence, allowing us to draw upon a wealth of quality evidence and expertise. The Government states that this bill is intended to address deficiencies in the Protection of Wild Mammals Scotland Act 2002, which may have contributed to the continuation of illegal hunting practices in Scotland. The bill attempts to address some ambiguities in the language used. It also introduces a two-dog limit for hunting above ground and a one-dog limit below ground. It provides for a licensing scheme to facilitate exceptions to some of those limits and prohibits activities known as trail hunting. The committee notes its intentions and recognises the bill as an attempt to strike a balance between pursuing the highest possible standards in animal welfare, while also allowing for the legitimate control of wild mammals in our rural communities. Although the committee supported the general principles of the bill, there were a number of concerns raised by various stakeholders that we reflected in our report. Therefore, I welcome, on behalf of the committee, the Government's response that sets out its own views on those concerns. In addition, I appreciate the response that has been provided in good time to allow all members to reflect on both our report and the response ahead of this debate. Section 1 and 2 creates the offence of hunting using a dog if none of the exceptions set out in the later sections apply. The revised language and definition used in the bill lead on from the Lord Bonomy review of 2002, undertaken in 2016. In evidence to the committee, Lord Bonomy stated that he regarded the bill as a very well-crafted piece of legislation and that it makes everything more much clearer and simpler, which in itself should be a great incentive for better enforcement of the law. Lord Bonomy also supported the removal of the word deliberately from the definition of hunting, but the committee also noted the concerns of some stakeholders who called for the bill to introduce clearer definitions of terms such as hunting, searching and coursing. It is vital that the bill does not repeat the problems of ambiguous language, which was identified in the 2002 act, and we asked for further information on the definition of hunting to reassure us that those terms do not need to be further defined. In our response, the minister reiterated a position that hunting should encompass to quote the natural meaning of the word, and argued that to expand the term would be, in quoting again, offering scope for people to argue that some specific conduct that would naturally be understood as hunting falls out with the definition. Moving on to the issues of the definition of a wild mammal, which has been expanded to include rabbits, but not rats, mice or animals living under temporary or human control. The committee noted that the inclusion of rabbits in the definition is intended to address concerns that hunting rabbits is used as a cover for hair coursing, as well as to prevent rabbits from being chased and killed by dogs. There was disagreement among stakeholders on the animal welfare benefits of including rabbits, with some arguing that a ban on using dogs to hunt rabbits is not the most effective way to tackle hair coursing. In our report, we asked for further information from the Government on how dogs are used to control rabbits in Scotland and to clarify what alternative methods of preventing hair coursing have been considered. I know that Police Scotland welcomed the inclusion of rabbits in there because it cannot be used as subterfuse for hair coursing, and the police office also said that there was a useful inclusion in the bill. The committee was undecided on that, and I will not give my personal opinion as the convener of the committee. Do you agree that those were the quotes? Sorry, I did not hear your question. Do you agree that those were the quotes from your report? Those are quotes, yes. In the response, the minister stated that the bill would address the animal welfare anomaly, whereby it is an offence to use dogs to chase and kill hares and most wild mammals, but not to chase and kill rabbits. The bill provides for exceptions to the offence of hunting a wild mammal using a dog, and those are in sections 3 and 5 to prevent serious damage to livestock, woodland or crops, and prevent the spread of disease and protect human health. In section 6 for falconry, game shooting and deer stalking, and in section 7 for environmental benefits such as preserving particular species or biodiversity more broadly, those exceptions can only be used for certain purposes and so long as specified conditions are met. One condition in the exceptions is the use of a bird of prey to kill a wild mammal instead of the use of guns. The animal welfare commission did question and evidence why that exception was included and recommended its removal from the bill. The minister confirmed that the use of a bird of prey as one of the two permitted methods of killing a wild mammal was to include instances where a falconar is employed to use dogs to flush to a waiting bird of prey. In section 3, it is the first exception and introduces a two dog limit for the purpose of controlling wild mammals above ground to prevent serious damage to livestock, woodland or crops. The committee recognised the impact and the consequences of serious damage caused by wild mammals. The committee also noted the different views of stakeholders on the impact of the two dog limit on animal welfare. Some considered that that would still allow for the flushing of mammals from cover whilst reducing the likelihood of a dog handler losing control over a pack. However, there were concerns that that would prevent the effective flushing of animals and prolong distress for both wild mammal and dog. Some of the committee shared those concerns on a report that asked the Government to address them in a workable way through the proposed licensing scheme. Section 4 sets out the proposal for a licensing scheme and an exemption to the exemption to permit the use of more than two dogs for a maximum of 14 days. The licensing scheme is set to be administered by NatureScot. While the licensing scheme could be the means to address in stakeholders concerns about the impact of the two dog limit, the committee heard different expectations among stakeholders on how the licensing scheme would work in practice. Different expectations partly as a result of a lack of clarity around the licensing scheme. The committee welcomed the commitment by the Government and NatureScot to engage with stakeholders around the design of the licensing scheme and to provide further information on the scheme's development. The minister set out her intention to continue to engage with stakeholders after today's decision. If the general principles are agreed to, but given the significant importance of the licensing scheme as a convener of the committee, I would warmly welcome a commitment to give a verbal update to the committee prior to consideration of stage 2 amendments. It may also be the case that any movement on this and other contentious areas in the Government position may require the committee to take additional evidence before the conclusion of the bill process. A particular concern among some stakeholders in which we sought the Government's view on was the requirement for a licence to be valid for up to 14 days. I thank the minister for her response on the issue and for confirming her continued engagement with stakeholders and her openness to consider alternative approaches should appropriate arguments be made to why 14 days would not be a sufficient period. Section 5 provides an exception for the use of one dog below ground to flush, fox or mink. It is the Government's view that the use of one dog below ground strikes a balance between predation control and animal welfare. However, animal welfare stakeholders have concerns that even the use of one dog below ground raises animal welfare issues. We also heard about how the exception would work in practice as the conditions require verbal or audible commands by the dog handlers, but the national working terrace federation position is that flushing is the most effective when dog handlers work in silence. Given that evidence, the committee was not clear on how the exception would maintain the highest animal welfare standards or work in practice. The minister's response reiterates the Government's position and provides some helpful clarification on how the exception would work. I welcome her commitment to listen carefully to what is said today about the exception and to give full consideration to her views and feedback before stage 2 proceedings. Section 6 provides an exception for the use of up to two dogs for fox or mink shooting and deer stalking. The main issue raised in relation to this was raised by some stakeholders about how the exception for game and rough shooting would work in practice. In conclusion, the minister's response gave some detail. However, there are some concerns that there are more questions to be answered from her response. The response does little to provide clarity around rough shoots and creates more questions. We look forward to more engagement as we go through this process. The committee will continue to highlight the concerns of the stakeholders. I look forward to hearing members' contributions today in this debate, some of which, if the bill does progress at decision time, expect the committee to explore in more detail at stage 2. Thank you very much, Mr Carson. Unfortunately, we do not have really much time in hand, so I will have to keep members to their speaking allocations. I could also remind members that, when you make an intervention, you will need to then repress your button if you are looking to speak later in the debate. With that, I call Rachel Hamilton for up to seven minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am glad you reminded me of that. Since the election of the sixth Scottish Parliament, this Chamber has seen over 200 debates. In that time, I can think of only two that have exclusively focused on rural affairs. I welcome this exceedingly rare opportunity to discuss a matter that relates to our rural communities in this setting. However, I would add that discussing these matters is so infrequent. It is indicative of a Government that does not understand that 98% of this country is classified as rural. 1% of debates are 98% of Scotland. That lack of understanding, Presiding Officer, I am afraid is plainly evident in this bill. After Lord Bonomy published his review of existing legislation on hunting with dogs, Ministers were right to look at ways of addressing the weaknesses highlighted, but they have done so in a manner that ignores both the findings of Bonomy's review and the burden of evidence provided by stakeholders. I want to address some of those key areas that the stakeholders have described as impractical, unworkable and damaging. For those who have taken an interest in this bill, I know animal welfare will be a key part of that interest. In that context, welfare concerns of the predator, the animals, wildlife under predation that are being protected, and in this context, earlier this month, we were all alarmed to hear of the perilous position that Capercaly find themselves. It is the same story for other ground nesting birds such as the curlew. We must recognise that the failure to manage predators has real life consequences, not just for kept animals but for our fledgling wildlife too. Does the Minister really want to be the Minister who lost the Capercaly or the curlew? The reality of this bill is that that is what is at stake here. By passing this bill in its current form, we risk removing the vital tool of predator control from our toolbox for protecting and enhancing Scotland's biodiversity. The SCA note that if dogs are continued to be used effectively in rough shooting or other pest control contexts, more than two dogs will be needed and must therefore be licensed under the bill. The former director of the League Against Cruel Sports stated that gun packs have realised that pairs of dogs are utterly useless in flushing to guns. Whilst Lord Bonomy himself noted that imposing such a restriction could seriously compromise effective pest control in the country, especially on rough or covered terrain. Given the implications of imposing a two-dog limit, it is absolutely imperative that the licensing system is fair and workable, and I acknowledge that the Minister has said that in her response. The bill's viability, as Bonomy notes, rests on this, yet has currently drafted that there is an overwhelming burden of evidence from organisations such as BASC, CSA, NFUS and many more that suggest that this is neither fair, practical or remotely workable. There is a typical lack of detail, but where the detail is provided, it makes for worrying reading. The 14-day licence, for example, is ill thought through and un-evidenced. As the SCA pointed out, most land managers that use packs to flush would do so two to three times a year at regular intervals, in conjunction with other methods. To limit each licence to a 14-day period is unworkable, unless applicants can be granted multiple licences, which is, of course, bureaucratic and unnecessary. Farmers need the flexibility to use their licence allowance, as is most appropriate to them. The current plan would completely ignore this need. There are many more unanswered questions about the licensing scheme. As the Minister has already stated in the Reign Committee, we simply cannot wait until a farmer's livestock has been killed by a fox before they have enough evidence to apply for their licence. This begs the question, what evidence does an applicant need to provide in order to obtain a licence? We do not know. What is the distinction between flushing foxes to protect livestock or to protect the environment? No answer. And how does the scheme deal with landscape scale wildlife management? More evidence required. There is a lot of work to be done, on the few areas of the licensing scheme I have discussed, but this barely scratches the surface and my time is ticking on. Turning to the inclusion of rabbits in the definition of a wild mammal, I do understand that there is the intention from the Government to tackle the serious problem of hair coursing, but this must not come at the expense of effective wildlife management. There is a remedy to this that would allow rabbits to be excluded from the definition whilst ensuring that they could not be used as a defence for hair coursing. I would be grateful if the Minister would meet with me to discuss this in the future for perhaps future amendments. We know how damaging rabbit grazing can be to the natural environment, as well as grazing grounds that farmers need for their livestock. They can cause damage to crops, businesses and infrastructure, costing farmers and others money to repair and replace what is damaged, as well as putting a massive strain on their mental health. I will give way to the minister. I would be happy to speak with the member, as I am, with any member who wants to discuss these issues. I would ask her to reflect on whether she believes that the sentience of a rabbit means that it is welfare ought to be protected and that it ought to be protected from being chased and killed by dogs in the same way that we would all agree that it should. I would ask the minister if she believes that the sentience of a rat would be in the same category. Bask has also pointed out that the inclusion of rabbits in the two-dog limit has unintended consequences for rough shooting. I am sure that the minister would like to touch on that in her closing remarks, given the widespread concern that this activity would become restricted rather than an exception. This afternoon, the Crofting Federation joined a protest outside the Parliament against the proposed new agricultural bill, or the lack of detail within the bill for the Crofting Bill. Next week, an even larger rally, organised by the NFUS, will be held on the same issue. I do not have much time and I am really sorry that perhaps you could speak to me at another time. This hunting with dogs bill is growing to a large pile of red tape, and it is stopping people from doing their job. The very people who provide food for the country whilst working towards a sustainable future for agriculture and for Scotland's countryside, protecting crops and managing our natural environment, protecting wildlife—these people are all doing this, but they are needlessly being penalised with more bureaucracy than ever. I see that you are making notes for me to conclude. This is the extent of letters, even in the last week, from rural organisations who are concerned about this. I am concerned for their mental health and their livelihoods, and I hope that the SNP will share those concerns. Thank you, Ms Hamilton. I now call Colin Smyth for up to six minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to echo the thanks to the RAIN Committee members and CLACs for all the work that they put into gathering evidence to inform its stage 1 report and to all those who made submissions. Like the committee, Labour is happy to support the general principles of the bill at stage 1. This bill is the culmination of many years of reviews, of consultations, of debate and, unfortunately, of delays. It is time to put this matter to bed. It is time to end the cruelty of hunting with dogs once and for all. It is 20 years since the protection of mammals' bills passed by this Parliament. Since then, a minority have sought to ignore both the letter and the spirit of that law, to exploit loopholes to believe that, despite the will of Parliament, despite overwhelming public opposition to hunting with dogs, it should be business as usual. For them, this bill, as it stands, will mean a continuation of that business as usual. The bill does not fully close the loopholes that exist. It merely licences them. You cannot licence cruelty. You cannot believe in the one hand that we need to limit the number of dogs to two because that reduces the risk of dogs instinctively chasing and killing, but then, on the other hand, continue to allow the use of packs of dogs simply because they have a licence. You do not close loopholes by creating new ones. Do you accept the fact that land managers, farmers and those who live and work in the land have a right to be able to continue to protect their livestock and crops? They certainly do. There were numerous examples given to the committee of why that can be achieved using the limit of two dogs. Labour will bring forward the amendment to this bill to remove licencing, to make sure that two dogs actually mean two dogs. I would say this to SNP members. If you vote against that, if you vote with Tory MSPs to keep licencing, you do vote to keep hunting with packs of dogs. Is that it? If I can get the time back. Just to ask Mr Smith if he does not accept that in some terrain, in forestry, on uneven and difficult land, on hill land, it is simply impossible to carry out the task with only two dogs. There are numerous ways in which people can manage wildlife in their area, and using dogs is only one of them. The very fact that the Government has so far failed to actually define what a licence would be achieved by, and what the criteria would be, I think suggests that that will be difficult, but I think that Fergus Ewing does give the game away that some people will seek to ride roughshod over the ban by using the licencing scheme for pretty, I have to say, undefined criteria in the hands of the Presiding Officer. I do have time to take that and have the time back. Would Colin Smith tell us what the other alternatives are? For example, would an upland farmer in his constituency, and I am sure that you have engaged with many of them, Mr Smith, be able to put a great big fence around their huge upland land? The builders do not ban the use of dogs, it limits the use of dogs to just two. In evidence to the committee, the minister admitted that the use of packs of dogs has meant, and I quote, mammals continue to be hunted and killed by dogs in contravention of the 2002 act. I appreciate that the Conservative members have little interest in animal welfare issues, but the reality is that handing out a licence will not make that any less cruel if you have a pack of dogs. Those who have exploited... You do not have any additional time, Mr Smith. I do not have any time, but I think that I am very clear what the Conservative position is on this ban, and what is really interesting, in particular, is that the UK Government position at this moment in time is to have legislation in England and Wales that covers only two dogs, but it is interesting to see the different position in Scotland. Handing out a licence will not make the use of packs of dogs any less cruel, and those who have exploited the current hunting legislation will seek to exploit this flawed legislation. Many, including the Government's own Animal Welfare Commission, along with animal welfare organisations such as the SSPCA, One Kind, the League Against Cruel Sports, Scottish Badgers and the Animal Welfare Committee already argue that this bill is a compromise by allowing any dogs in the hunting of mammals. None, Presiding Officer, are not a single one, support a licensing scheme to allow a continuation of hunting with more than two dogs. This is not the only area that Labour believes this bill falls short. On the offence of hunting itself, the removal of the word deliberately is welcome, but the definition of hunting still focuses on searching and course, and it does not include other terms such as stalking, pursuing or flushing. We agree with it that the written submission from One Kind suggests that the definition should be to search for, stalk, flush, chase, pursue or course. The committee in its stage 1 report rightly said that it is vital that the bill does not repeat ambiguities and definitions that were present in the 2002 act, and the minister herself acknowledged when she gave evidence to the committee that it could be helpful to expand on the list of specified terms, something that Labour will seek to achieve at stage 2. On the definition of a wild animal on the bill, Police Scotland and others supported the inclusion of rabbits, which is a material change from the previous act, not just as a means of preventing hair coursing, but on animal welfare grounds. Rabbits are, after all, sentient creatures. Two are rats and mice, but I note the view from the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission that some of the methods of controlling rodents are arguably even less humane than killing with dogs. The sooner we outlaw many of those methods, such as glue traps, the better. In the meantime, Labour accepts the exclusion of rats and mice in the definition. We are, however, unconvinced by the proposal to continue to allow the use of dogs below ground to control wild animals. The provisions in the act to limit the number of dogs to one, and for that dog to somehow be controlled, which is unrealistic, appears to be a messy compromise. If it is cruel to use more than one dog, then it is cruel to use any dogs. It is little wonder that, in its report, the committee says that it is not clear that, and I quote, the use of dogs at all below ground is compatible with the bill's pursuit of the highest possible animal welfare. That is because, Presiding Officer, it is not. The Government does not bring forward an amendment to remove the use of dogs below ground when Labour will do so. I want to end on a positive note. A welcome section 11 of the bill introduces new offences for participating in trail hunting, a sport that has been created in England and Wales as a cover for hunting wild mammals after the passage of the hunting act 2005. One kind pointed out in the submission to the committee that, by preemptively banning trail hunting in Scotland, it will prevent a repeat of that in Scotland. The SSPC also highlighted that banning trail hunting altogether will, and I quote, eliminate any confusion by enforcement agencies of the activity taking place. Presiding Officer, there is much more in the bill that I am sure will be raised in the debate, and hopefully I will come back to some of those issues in my closing comments. However, in conclusion, ending hunting with packs of dogs is unfinished business. It is regrettable that the bill is necessary, but it is. However, we need to get it right. Labour will work with the Government and others to help to achieve that and ensure that we do not respond to existing loopholes by creating new ones, that we do not just nudge the bar towards less hunting with packs of dogs, but that we end hunting with packs of dogs and that we end it once and for all. Okay. Thank you, Mr Smith. There will be a little time for interventions, for time to be given back in the case of interventions, but there is very limited time. Beatrice Wishart, up to six minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As Deputy Convener of the Rain Committee, I add my thanks to the clerks, the bill team and SPICE for their work, and to my committee colleagues and convener Finlay Carson. I'd also like to thank all the witnesses who gave evidence to the committee and the organisations who provided briefings. The stated aim of the bill, which replaces the 2002 act to hunt a wild mammal using a dog, except in limited circumstances, is to give clarity to what was intended by the original act. The bill seeks to manage control rather than eradicate it, which is an important part of living on the land. I want to see a workable scheme based on evidence. I note in the Law Society of Scotland briefing their concerns regarding a section in part 1, 3, 3e, and the condition that the wild mammal is shot dead or killed by a bird of prey as soon as reasonably possible. They highlight that such terminology does not provide, in a quote, substantive difference from the equivalent provision under the 2002 act, which requires the mammal to be shot dead or killed by a bird of prey once it is safe to do so. The proposed licensing scheme chimes with evidence that the committee heard that in some instances more than two dogs are required to flush a wild mammal from cover for quick flushing and dispatch. The Liberal Democrats support the principle of a licensing scheme. The Scottish Government will need to address concerns about this scheme, which we share. The minister stated that applying for a licence should be the exception, but clarity is needed from the minister here on what will be considered an exception. A workable licensing scheme must be evidence-led and flexible. The 14 consecutive days does not seem unnecessarily restrictive, and I would like the minister to consider greater flexibility, led by the evidence that it could be 14 days across a longer period. Criteria used for the licensing scheme also needs to be looked at, as there is a lack of clarity about the details of the scheme. Those criteria must be developed through engagement with stakeholders and again be based on the evidence as to what works. The minister indicates that she is willing to engage further with stakeholders on this matter, and I encourage her to do so to ensure that the licensing scheme will be both workable and practicable. It must support crofters and farmers and those who live and work on the land in their role as land managers and food producers to protect livestock and crops through necessary pest control and help combat biodiversity loss. NatureScot will be responsible for administering the licensing scheme, and the committee received assurances that it is fully resourced to cope with the additional responsibility. In scrutinising that point, it would be helpful if the Scottish Government could indicate how many licences they expect to be issued each year once the system is operational. Some stakeholders have raised concerns about the implications for rough shooting and gun dog trials, but I am pleased that the minister clarified that those activities remain legal under the bill, providing that each person in attendance controls no more than two dogs and that the dogs do not form a pack. I note that the Scottish Government agrees with concerns that the bill does not provide for the use of two dogs to search for and retrieve a wild mammal that has been injured, and I look forward to seeing the amendment from the Scottish Government to address that point in due course. I turn now to trail hunting. The proposed pre-emptive ban is sensible given the view that because of the ban on hunting with more than two dogs in England and Wales, trail hunting here could be used as a cover for hunting wild mammals. Concerns were raised, however, that the two-dog limit on the exception for training dogs to follow an animal-based scent could negatively impact police and emergency rescue dog training practices. The committee heard that in Police Scotland up to six dogs are trained at once. However, the Scottish Government stated that it is not standard practice to release more than two dogs at any one time, so I would appreciate assurance from the Government that all emergency and rescue trainings will be covered by this exception. What remains on the details to ensure the bill achieves its aims, but today the Scottish Liberal Democrats will support the general principles of the bill. We now move to the open debate, and I call first Karen Adam to be followed by Russell Finlay for around six minutes, Ms Adam. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As a member of the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, I am pleased to participate in this debate and in our deliberations. It would be true to say that the committee has endorsed the general principles of the bill. It would also be true to say that the evidence from stakeholders has been constructive and supportive, as from the National Farmers Union of Scotland, who have stressed the need to maintain effective, practical and pragmatic control of wild animals in the farming and crofting context, and to the League Against Cruel Sports Scotland, who rightly pointed out the flaws in the legislation surrounding this sum 20 years ago. In the bill, the inevitability surrounding the challenges posed by definitions has loomed large. The dilemma of deploying an inclusive and open ended approach, with the potential for unintended consequences by way of extending terminology, it is a balancing act that has been successfully achieved here in this bill. Part of that balancing act is our determination to close down loopholes that might be exploited by those who wish to continue using dogs to chase and kill wild animals. On the other hand, we recognise the need for the effective protection of livestock and wildlife from predation where there is no other option than the use of more than two dogs. The evidence to the committee from the Police and Crown Office has, of course, been invaluable, not least with regard to hair coursing that remains a serious concern in Scotland, and the inclusion of rabbits within the definition of wild mammal in the bill is part of a wider package that addresses the issue. The stakeholder in public, yes? I thank the member for taking the intervention, but does the member recognise the serious damage that rabbits can do to land and biodiversity and the rest of it and crops, causing livelihood issues to farmers if not controlled properly? Karen Adam. Yes, I do agree with the member in that regard that they can cause damage, but, as we heard on the committee, there are other ways of controlling rabbits. We need to look at those other options, not necessarily hunting them down with dogs, and in Scotland we need to be set in a standard and the highest standard for animal welfare. Does the member take the intervention? Absolutely. Can I ask the member if, at any point, your evidence that we received, did anyone suggest that there were any concerns relating to rabbits and animal welfare? I do not think that I need to hear evidence or anybody needs to hear evidence that hunting and killing rabbits without actual need to would be harmful in any way. I do not quite get what, if you want to narrow down your question a bit, is this specifically what you mean? Quite some of this bill is all about animal welfare, that is the principle of this bill. Did we hear any evidence that suggested there were any animal welfare issues relating to rabbits? Karen Adam. I think we heard plenty of evidence from a lot of stakeholders, but the main premise of this bill is to tighten up legislation and to ensure that we have the highest animal welfare standards in Scotland. I do not believe, and others agree with me, that chasing down a wild rabbit with dogs is fitting with those high standards in Scotland. The evidence to the committee—sorry, I will not read that again—is part of a wider package that addresses the issue. The stakeholder and public consultation on the definition of wild mammal highlighted that those who are suspected of undertaking hair coursing and a legal activity under the 2002 act frequently use the cover that they are legally using dogs to hunt rabbits. As that is always the case, the committee deliberates, we sit here and we scrutinise, but key to enforcement is us building a greater level of public awareness, of poaching and coursing, a serious wildlife crime, and we must continue to build work in relations, communications and share information between all agencies and organisations. As a committee, we have also recognised a degree of flexibility to meet individual context and circumstances. I doubt that I am not alone in recalling the submissions to us from Lord Bonomy regarding the two-dog limit that could affect predator control, not least particularly on rough and hilly ground and in extensive areas over dense cover such as Conifer Woodlands. One size does not fit all in the addition of a licensing scheme to enable the use of more than two dogs in certain circumstances is a viable approach, as the bill acknowledges. Following this debate, there will rightly be a series of stakeholder engagement meetings that will follow the shared wildlife management principles, providing an open platform for stakeholders to discuss and provide expertise in developing such licensing schemes. In conclusion, there has been a profound amount of work on this proposed legislation at committee level, and my time speaking to it is of course limited. Having packs of dogs kill and chase animals such as foxes has no place in modern Scotland. The practice has been illegal for 20 years, but there are a number of loopholes that need to be addressed to end the practice once and for all, and this bill facilitates that. At the outset, I should declare an interest or perhaps it's a non-interest, despite being an urban creature who's most comfortable surrounded by concrete and fumes. I do sometimes pass through the clean air of the countryside and have even been known to visit on occasion. What I'm supposed to say is that I do not have anything like the knowledge of this subject as many others who are speaking today, and it's possible they're not having being a countryside dweller may even be helpful as I do not have a dog in this particular fight, so to speak. Let me begin by thanking Finlay Carson, my party's convener of the Rural Affairs Islands and Natural Environment Committee, along with the other members. I know that Finlay and my equally highly respected colleague Rachel Hamilton have great passion for Scotland's rural communities and a real depth of knowledge. Having been volunteered to speak in today's debate, I realised that I needed to learn quickly. I've read numerous media reports and debate briefs submitted to members, and I spent some of recess digesting the committee's stage 1 report on hunting with Dogg's Scotland Bill, which is, of course, what we are dealing with this afternoon. It's evident that much work has been done with many competing views having been expressed, and while there's some support for this legislation, all members should listen to the strong and valid concerns that have been raised by numerous organisations. These include the Scottish Countryside Alliance, which describes the bill as an, I quote, unnecessary and contrary to the evidence. It contests the apparent premise of this legislation, which is that the protection of wild animals Scotland Act 2002 has somehow failed. It warned that this new bill, which is intended to replace the 2002 act, might not improve animal welfare as is intended. According to the Scottish Countryside Alliance, it could actually have the opposite effect. Their director, Jake Swindall, said, we cannot have a situation unfold where a bill of this magnitude is waved through with potentially devastating consequences for rural Scotland and our countryside, I will, yes. I thank the member for giving way. Without trade-in quotes, will he also acknowledge that the committee received evidence from another Lord Bonomy, the author of the review in question, who said rather that the bill makes everything much clearer and simpler and that it will be a great incentive for better enforcement of the law? Lord Bonomy did say that, and what I'm trying to illustrate is the other voices that feel—and I'll come on to this—that they have perhaps not been as heard properly as they should have been. It seems that some who oppose this legislation feel they are not being heard, or worse, that the Government is just going through the motions. It brings me to mind my recent experience on the criminal justice committee when we took evidence from stakeholders in relation to what became the Fireworks and Pyrotechnic Articles Scotland Act. Industry representatives with decades of experience and whose interests are served by the safeties of fireworks complained of being sidelined, they expressed frustration that their input felt more like tokenism or box ticking, and blinkered ministers had already decided what they wanted to do. We've seen similar recent criticism directed at this Government's gender recognition reform bill, where women with legitimate and reasonable concerns feel they are not being heard because their views don't suit Nicola Sturgeon's agenda. So whether it's about gender reform, fireworks, hunting with dogs or any other bill, it's the job of members of this Parliament to listen and to consider all views, not just pay lip service to them. I'll give way. Tim Fairlie. I'd thank the member for giving way. Could he not just acknowledge the fact that the minister has actually stated in her opening statement that she's going to take evidence and speak to stakeholders? She's accepted an intervention. She's accepted an intervention from my colleague already who has stated that they will be informed, the decisions of women informed, by dealing with stakeholders. Russell Findlay. I'm sure those stakeholders will be reassured by the minister's comments today and let's hope that indeed comes to pass. Another issue about today's bill, which interests me, relates to its enforcement, which will fall to Police Scotland. We ask so much of our police officers who work grueling shifts under immense pressure and whose numbers are at their lowest since 2008. While generally supportive of the bill, Police Scotland has raised a number of concerns that feature in the stage 1 report. They dispute an opinion provided to the committee by the Law Society of Scotland in relation to the bill differentiating between ordinary dog walkers and those involved in the illegal act of hair coursing. Police Scotland also has raised concerns about the bill's intended outlawing of trail hunting. The SNP Government to ban trail hunting in Scotland, even though, as I understand it, it is rarely, if ever, takes place here. This is apparently because of a prosecution in England of trail hunting being used as a cover for illegal hunting. Police Scotland reasonably points out that just because this has happened elsewhere does not in itself justify the need for banning it here. Another concern made by the police relates to the possibility that elements of the bill might negatively impact on the training of police dogs. I am sure that we will hear more about that in due course. They were returning to my main point. In closing, I hope that the Government listens to those concerns, along with those from others who know what they are talking about. I am really disappointed in the tone in which the Tories have brought this debate, because I thought that the conversations that we were having were constructive, that they were looking for a balance, and that is what I hoped that today's debate would be. Unfortunately, that is not the case. There is something with 30 years of everyday experience, and I mean quite literally every day experience, because working in sheep farming is a seven day a week job. I have lived experiences as a sheep farmer, and I feel that I have a unique perspective in this chamber in that I am able to bring that perspective of a person whose professional livelihood could have been affected by the consequences of this bill. My hope is that my views are taken as balanced, proportionate and in keeping with the aims of the bill, which are trying to find the right solutions to the loopholes while trying to allow those whose livelihoods and ways of life are affected to have comfort that the bill will be workable and how it affects each of them. Predators such as Fox's killing the odd lamb is what we sheep farmers would call passing trade. It is going to happen. If you get one lamb lifted, that is the way it goes. If it happens a second time, you start to pay attention to it. So if a third lamb is lifted or killed for trinkets like ears or tails, then there is an issue in your lambing fields, and your lambing fields are going to be the lardar and the ctoi cupboard for then over the coming season, and that is simply not sustainable for sheep farmers. It is clear that Fox's can and do real damage to livestock and livelihoods and ground nesting birds. It is important that the Parliament affirms that a certain amount of wildlife control or predator control is a necessity for land managers, farmers and conservationists and that this is at the heart of this bill and is what this bill intends to do. So it must be balanced against the absolute necessity to close the loopholes that allows for the obscenity of those looking to hunt foxes or animals with packs of dogs for sport and pleasure. I thank Jim Fairlie for taking the intervention. Would Jim Fairlie accept that the licensing scheme should be as flexible as possible beyond a 14-day period, which gave land owners, land managers the ability to control predators over a longer period of time without having to consistently apply for a licensing scheme, which is bureaucratic, especially during the lambing season. I will come on to the licensing scheme in my speech. Throughout our committee discussions, I raised concerns with the potential granting of the licensing scheme for working more than two dogs and for those seeking to address predatory problems. Foxes are going to be foxes and there is no way for farmers to determine which of the foxes that will cause their business is harm and over what precise time period they are going to strike. Grant in a 14-day, the licence is only on the basis of a proven local issue is problematic and I am not convinced that at this stage we have found the right balance over timings, but I am confident that I welcome the minister's commitment to my colleague Graham Day's intervention to look at this point with land managers helping to inform the best practice for granting the licences. I understand the governance position and concerns of people using the licence as a loophole, but when we were talking about walked up hounds as opposed to ridden hounds, the desire and opportunity to use this licence to exploit or create a loophole is as unlikely as it is undesirable for those who are using walked hounds for bread or control. I am still keen for the Government to explore the possibility of looking at how many guns are available as importantly as the number of dogs used for flushing. I raised this issue in committee on several occasions. If there are sufficient guns in the drive, there will be no room for foxes to escape and the guns to escape the guns and then be hunted and killed by dogs. My final point is that we must not unintentionally criminalise rough on game shooting. At the start of my intervention I suggested that the focus on better definition is by all means well intended and I completely understand the Government's position in trying to protect rabbits from being hunted by dogs and to close the loophole that exists for those who pursue hair-coursing as a sport. I would caution against the unintended consequences of criminalising those who quite legitimately pursue rough shooting and game shooting. I welcome the opportunity to discuss this in depth with the minister at a later date. I appreciate you taking the intervention. Could you give me one example where two dogs would be the most appropriate in terms of ability to flush or animal welfare where two dogs were the most appropriate number of dogs? I will give you one scenario then, one that I have actually used as a sheep farmer. There was a very narrow cops of woods running up about 250 metres. There were two guns on either side. Two dogs went through the middle and we shot the fox at the top. I will give you as many examples that you would like to finish. I feel that the points that I raised today were— You are the chair, Mr Fairlie, and not first names, please. My apologies. Given the point that Mr Finlay, Mr Carson, has just raised with me, the points that I have raised today remark upon real-world experience of farmers such as myself and I look forward to the continuing work of this bill as it continues its path through Parliament because I believe that the Government has got its own rights and they will do the right consultation and this bill will do exactly what it says in the tin. As a member of the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, let me begin by thanking the deputy convener for his facilitation of a robust series of scrutiny sessions of the Hunting with Dogs Scotland Bill and the committee clerks for their detailed and thorough work throughout. I think that it is fair to say that we knew from the outset that the bill would stimulate lively debate and I believe that our stage 1 report reflects the diversity of views that we heard. Representing a large rural area as I do in the north east, I recognise that there are differing views as to whether the measures in this bill are proportionate in terms of their impact on the rural sector and if they go far enough in strengthening wildlife protection. Nevertheless, the principles of this bill are to be welcomed, which is why Scottish Labour will be backing it at stage 1 today. As a party, we have long been committed to strengthening wildlife protection law and to truly ending the practice of fox hunting in Scotland. This legislation marks a welcome step forward in this regard and it is a testament to animal welfare campaigning organisations such as the League Against Crawl Sports, One Kind and Scottish Badgers who have helped to secure some of the positive changes included in this bill. However, there are a number of limitations in the bill as drafted, which we would hope to see amended at stage 2, no interventions. The Scottish Government has been clear that the bill seeks to address inconsistencies and ambiguities in the language contained in the 2002 act, which often undermined attempts to investigate and prosecute alleged offences. Yet, as has been highlighted by the Law Society of Scotland, ambiguities remain in the bill as drafted. As well as a lack of clarity around certain definitions and acts described in the bill, the Law Society of Scotland also identifies the importance of clarifying language to improve both understanding and enforcement. It makes a number of suggestions such as clarifying what is meant by invasive non-native species by providing a list of common names of such species to be included in the bill. I would urge the Scottish Government to address some of the ambiguous language currently in the bill to strengthen understanding, interpretation and enforcement. Given that the Scottish Government's stated aim for the bill is to achieve the highest possible animal welfare standards, it is also clear that the proposal to allow even one dog below ground undermines that. Animal welfare organisations highlighted to the committee the difficulties in controlling a dog below ground, increasing the likelihood of conflict between a dog and a wild mammal as a result. Such conflicts pose serious welfare risks to both animals. The Scottish Government has acknowledged the view that such practice is incompatible with the highest standards of animal welfare and has not sought to refute this, yet has chosen to retain the exception in the bill for the use of one dog underground. The Scottish Government refer to this as balance, but the Minister cannot have it both ways. She cannot compromise on cruelty in the same bill she claims will achieve the highest standards of animal welfare. No intervention. I also agree with animal welfare organisations who question why the bill permits the use of birds as a method of killing. It is not credible for the Scottish Government to suggest that the killing of an animal by a bird of prey rather than a dog is better from an animal welfare perspective. The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission told the committee in its evidence that, and I quote, the impact on the welfare of the hunted animal is likely to be similar whether killed by a dog or by a bird of prey. While the bill will strengthen fox hunting laws, it will also introduce a licensing scheme that will allow hunting to continue in some circumstances. Under the proposed licensing scheme, packs of dogs could still be used. As a result, these packs of dogs would be exempt from the proposed two-dog limit. It is evidently a loophole that could be exploited by those looking to get around the rules and continue with hunts. As I have already stated, I welcome the principles underpinning the bill of strengthening wildlife protection and animal welfare, but the bill evidently needs further changes to strengthen it, including addressing the ambiguity of some of the language used in it that could undermine both interpretation and enforcement. As the bill also fails to end the use of any dogs below ground, there continues to be welfare risks for both dogs and wild mammals, and the bill should not permit the use of birds of prey as a method of killing. The proposed licensing scheme also has an inherent loophole that could be exploited by those looking to continue hunts. If the Scottish Government is unwilling to make the changes needed to this bill, Scottish Labour will introduce amendments ahead of stage 2, because failure to make these changes risks wasting the opportunity provided by this bill to deliver real and lasting changes to wildlife protection and animal welfare in Scotland. Presiding Officer, with time to reflect during recess, I speak in this chamber at a time when a year from a year ago we were facing COP26 and we are still deep in a climate and nature emergency. That is the unavoidable backdrop to everything that we do in this Parliament. That is the context that we need to keep fully in our minds when shaping and scrutinising legislation. I cannot fathom for the life of me why Governments and Parliaments around the world are not approaching this with the speed and focus with which we tackle the pandemic. Let's show the way, let's act like it's a real emergency because it is. Turning to the hunting with dogs bill, let's start from the perspective of a wild animal, a fox. The terror of being chased relentlessly, breathlessly by 36 hounds, something you haven't evolved to do, the desperation of finding your underground roots are blocked. The horror and agony of being torn, limb from limb, while still alive. Hunting wild mammals with packs of dogs is illegal but continues in Scotland. In the borders, Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, 10 hunts go out two to three times a week from November through March each and every year. On top of the hounds, there can be dozens of riders on horseback, plus terriers, all working together to prevent the animal's escape. This is not humane and it is not justifiable. In rain committee and meetings with stakeholders, a question formed in my mind, are we legislating for a Scotland of the past, are we legislating for a Scotland of today or are we, as we should be, legislating for a future Scotland? 87% of the Scottish public and 100% of under 35 support a ban on fox hunting and it's not just foxes that need protection, hares, rabbits. Ms Burgess, if you could resume your seat, point of order, Rachel Hamilton. I seek your advice please, Presiding Officer. Ariane Burgess has just suggested that 10 packs of hounds and the borders are breaking the law. Could I seek your advice as to if that is competent within this chamber? Ms Hamilton, I think that that was an intervention rather than a point of order. Ms Burgess, please continue. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It's not just foxes that need protection, hares, rabbits, stoats, minks and badgers are also at the risk of agonising death. The Scottish Greens are opposed to blood sports, full stop. No, I'm not going to take any interventions. The Scottish Greens are opposed to blood sports, full stop, and that's why they are excluded. This is an excluded area in the Butehouse agreement with the Scottish Government so that we can push harder for more ambitious legislation that gives wild animals the protection and respect they need and deserve. But there are areas where we do agree, and I'm confident that there will be scope to work together with the Government and other parties to strengthen this Bill as it makes its way through Parliament. So the Greens will support the Bill at stage one. However, to retain our support, it is essential that we close three loopholes in the legislation. It's already an offence to use a dog to chase and kill wild mammals, but exceptions in the current law act as loopholes, providing cover for illegal hunting to continue loopholes such as training dogs to follow an animal scent or using dogs to flush out foxes for falconry. If the Bill establishes a licensing scheme for using more than two dogs, illegal hunting will persist. Instead, we must close off any loopholes, just like the hunts close off the foxes' escape routes. The Scottish Greens are not interested in licensing cruelty, so at stage two I will lodge an amendment to remove the licensing scheme. A strict two-dog limit would put an end to illegal hunting with packs. Hunts won't want to go out with just two dogs, and if they do, it will be much easier for prosecutors to determine when the law is being broken. The evidence shows that it is not necessary to use more than two dogs to manage wildlife or to achieve environmental benefits, as my colleague Jim Fairlie just indicated. I understand and sympathise with farmers that their need to minimise the loss of lans and other stock. A two-dog limit will not prevent farmers from protecting their livestock or crops, but it will encourage the use of more humane and effective stock management measures. The licensing scheme is not the only loophole in the legislation that needs closing. Second, the exception for management of foxes and mink below ground needs to be removed, as it provides a smoke screen for terrier work in fox hunts. Even if the aim is to flush the fox or the mink to kill it in a more humane way, sending terriers below ground to often results in underground, virtually a dogfight underground and horrific injuries to the animals involved. The rain report questions whether the use of dogs at all below ground is compatible with the bill's pursuit of the highest possible animal welfare standards, and it is doubtful that it would ever align with the international ethical principles for wildlife control. Third, the loophole for using dogs in hunting for sport must be closed. There is no need to kill animals for sport. That is altogether different from killing them for food or to protect certain species, livestock or biodiversity. 89 per cent of people who support the bill object to this exception for falconry, game shooting and deer stocking. We can't allow this to be another loophole for fox hunts, like in England, where hunts sometimes carry birds of prey as a token presence to circumvent the two dog limit there. Greens support the intention of this bill to protect wild mammals from being chased and killed by packs of dogs, so we will vote in favour of its general principles. However, there is no doubt that the legislation remains flawed and those three loopholes must be closed. I look forward to working with the minister and members across the chamber to achieve this and finally ban fox hunting in Scotland. Thank you, Ms Burgess. As a result of everybody sticking to their time limits and even accommodating the interventions within their time limits, we now have a little bit more time in hand, so I think that my successor in the chair may be able to be a little bit more generous. If I may declare from the outset not so much an interest here as an objectivity, my constituency, the Western Isles, has no native fox population. That is with the exception of a single sighting some 14 years ago, which can only convincingly be explained as a fox if it was one that was either an exceptionally good swimmer or a very sly CalMac passenger. I have tried to approach my role on the committee from that dispassionate starting point. Like others, I thank everyone involved in the stage 1 report, including all other committee members, our witnesses, those stakeholders who gave written evidence and not least the committee clerks. It is important to remember that the aims of this bill grow out of a response to Lord Bonamy's report on the review of the protection of wild mammal Scotland act passed in 2002 by producing better and less ambiguous legislation on the hunting of wild mammals. Doing so requires, in my view, considering two objectives, preventing cruelty on the one hand and also recognising the legitimate needs for pest control that farmers and other land managers have on the other. While inevitably not all will agree with the committee's findings in the stage 1 report, I believe that the committee has taken balanced evidence on the many questions before it and, I must say, has done so in more measured tones than one or two of the contributions today might suggest we have. That is undeniably both a difficult and a technical issue. Rather than engage with inevitably polarising articles of faith around the question of hunting with dogs, I believe that the committee's stage 1 report is instead an effort to examine the facts. Not only does it seek to examine the Scottish Government's proposals, but it does, as others have mentioned, request further information from the Government on points of the bill where further information was and the committee's view is still needed. The Government has already responded to this call, which is very welcome, and the Government's response to the report will, I believe, help inform the bill as it now goes forward. A number of stakeholders have already commented that the bill represents a significant clarification of the law. Most notably, perhaps, as I have alluded to in an earlier intervention, the author of the 2016 review Lord Bonomy, in giving evidence to the committee, said that he regarded the bill as a very well-crafted piece of legislation and an improvement on the existing law. He commented to us that the bill solves the problems identified about the loose and variable use of language. It makes everything much clearer and simpler, which in itself should be a great incentive for better enforcement of the law, because the police and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service were struggling with the effective detection and prosecution of offenders. In the same evidence session, Dr Pete Goddard, from the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, commented that there are some small points on which greater clarity and less confusion could be introduced, but in general it is moving towards questioning practices and looking for solutions that follow international ethical practices for wildlife control. He said that they were very supportive of such moves. The report also acknowledges, however, the views of a minority on the committee about various specific issues, such as the inclusion of rabbits within the definition of wild mammal and whether the bill could possibly create a liability for dog walkers, where a dog chases a wild mammal while being exercised. For my own part, incidentally, I believe that the evidence we heard answered any questions about that last scenario very convincingly, a view that was shared by the majority of the committee. Other issues on which we took extensive evidence included the proposed two-dog limit, as others have discussed today, the licensing scheme that would provide for exceptions to that, the introduction of deprivation orders, which would allow the courts to intervene in relation to any dogs or horses used in an offence, allowing exceptions for the training of dogs, the use of dogs underground and the inclusion, as we have talked about, of rabbits within the terms of the bill, which, as others have alluded to, is intended to address the issue that those suspected of hair-corsing frequently use as a cover the explanation that they are legally using dogs to hunt rabbits. To conclude, Presiding Officer, I will, yes. I thank Ritchie Hamilton for taking the intervention. I was interested in the scope of the committee, the argument that using rabbits as a defence for hair-corsing would allow, when nobody has said this, the number of prosecutions to increase for hair-corsing, but I'm not sure if allowing that within the scope of this bill is strong enough, because so far there's been very few police prosecutions for hair-corsing. I thank the member for raising that issue. My recollection is from the evidence given to us by the police that they would certainly welcome measures that would address the issue of individuals using the exclusive of hunting rabbits as a cover for illegal hair-corsing. I certainly think that that is a sensible measure that the bill seeks to bring forward. To conclude, Presiding Officer, in our stage 1 report we have, as a committee, been able to recommend that the Parliament approve the general principles of this bill. That has not perhaps always been emphasised in the course of this debate, so let me emphasise it now. The committee report recommends that we, as a Parliament, approve the general principles of this bill. That, Presiding Officer, is something that I hope Parliament will now be able to do. Thank you. I call Donald Cameron to be followed by Christine Grahame. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and can I direct numbers to my register of interests in relation to owning a landholding in the Highland Council region? From the outset, I want to state that we want to see on these benches the highest animal welfare standards and a robustness in dealing with those who intentionally felt the law or put the lives of wild animals at risk for no reason. However, it is clear from the significant correspondence that I have received, and I am sure other Members in the Chamber have received from our constituents, that this bill could have unintended consequences and many people are worried. E-mails have come from concerned farmers, crofters and other land managers who believe that the bill in its current form is too restrictive due to its limitations and that the proposed licensing scheme will create problems in terms of pest and predator control. These emails have come from constituents of mine who live in rural communities across the Highlands and Islands. They feel that, while the principles behind the bill are sound, the manner in which the Government has presented it will do more harm than good. I share these concerns, and, while we will support the principles of the bill today, we believe on these benches that significant changes are needed before the bill comes back to secure our support. I also point out that of the 1,300 consultation comments on the bill, almost two-thirds of those comments were against it. I would like to focus on some of those issues today. The central point of concern is the proposed licensing scheme contained within the bill. Members will be aware of what the bill states in this regard, and there are worries about the workability of this scheme. The suggested reforms include the need for licences to be granted to groups of farmers and landowners for licences to be issued for livestock protection on any 14 days in a year rather than in one 14-day block, and for licences to be issued where the use of dogs will make a significant contribution to the prevention of serious damage to livestock or to the natural environment. The Scottish Conservatives are sympathetic to those requests for changes, and I would urge the Government and the Minister to consider them carefully. On the matter of 14-day licences, it is our belief that the existing proposal should be reviewed and altered, particularly that the time period is too restrictive and that it is not long enough to cover periods when pest control is needed, as Lord Bonomy himself found out. I note from the RAIN Committee stage 1 report that the minister has indicated that she should be open to look at the time period if it is seen not to be workable. Given that issue has been raised by some members and our external stakeholders, I hope that the Scottish Government will consider amending this. More broadly, the committee report also notes the lack of clarity about the details of the licensing scheme, and they have asked the Scottish Government for more information. Disappointingly, we do not have that information, and I think that it has been said that the detail cannot be provided until after stage 3. I think that that is simply unacceptable. I would urge the Government to at least give some detail about what form the licensing scheme will take. If the Government is pinning this bill on a licensing system, you have to give some indication as to what that licensing scheme will look like. Yes. Minister. Just to clarify on the point about the detail of the licensing scheme, I refer the member to section 8 and section 6 of the bill, which sets out a huge amount of detail of what is going to be included in the licensing scheme. What I am saying is that I cannot complete the accompanying guidance until the bill is in its final form. That is a reasonable position, surely? Donald Cameron, I do not think that it is a reasonable position, with respect. You need the guidance to explain the scheme. How else will stakeholders be allowed or expected to implement it or to try and qualify under it? It is completely unreasonable. In many ways, this is one of the reasons why a licensing scheme was not included in the 2002 act. Lord Bonomy himself stated that it is not clear that establishing a formal system of licensing would do more for the protection of wild mammals than amending the legislation would, and that the bureaucracy and expense involved are unlikely to be adequately reflected in resultant benefit, more precisely. Can I touch briefly on the issue of the two-dog restriction? The Scottish Conservatives believe that it is right that pest control using dogs is a regulated activity, but we know that various stakeholders have raised concerns about the implications of that specific restriction. Scottish Land and the States have argued that dog limits would make fox and pest control almost impossible and would have a negative impact on ground-nesting birds. The Scottish Gamekeepers Association, which is already referred to by others, has argued that that may result in the limiting of effectiveness of dog packs and a loss of revenue and limitations in operating, meaning that owners would have to put their dogs down. I listened with great interest to Jim Fairlie's comments on his experience of using two dogs in a wood. I have no reason to doubt that, but I have also seen hill packs of more than two dogs operating in the West Highlands, in Forestry Commission, Woodland, where the only way of doing that effectively is to have more than two dogs on steep areas of ground, covering large areas of woodland, for example. It is the only way to do it humanely and effectively. The Scottish Government has said that it believes that the two-dog limit is workable, reasonable and appropriate, but it is clear from what stakeholders have indicated in the comments from other members that this will not always be the case, and I urge the Minister to reflect on that. In closing, we want this bill to improve animal welfare while maintaining effective practical methods of pest control. It is clear that there are many worries about the current proposals. I am encouraged that the Government has recognised this, and we will work constructively with it to improve it. However, our farmers, our crofters, our land managers and the custodians of our countryside are right that we pass legislation that helps them to do their job rather than hinders them. Christine Grahame, the final speaker in the open debate. I am using my surface for the first time to speak from it, so if it all falls apart, so will I. Presiding Officer, we are not a member of the committee. I am pleased to rise and speak in this debate and thank the committee and all witnesses for whatever their position on this bill for their evidence that has led to this considered report. I also note the Scottish Government response. I further add that I support the general principles of the bill, but some general comments. I quote from the Minister at stage 1. I have tried to strike a balance between closing down loopholes and the need for effective protection of livestock and wildlife while life from predation. I think that the Minister is doing well in trying to strike that very difficult balance when there are undoubtedly ingrained and genuine views on the edges of this debate. I note Jim Fairlie's contribution, which I welcome and listen to with interest. We have debated this privately often. The comment from Lord Bonomate, who chaired the review of the protection of wild mammals Scotland Bill, which incidentally was a member's bill brought in in the early days of this Parliament by Trish Mawrick and Mike Watson, if I recall. It meant well and I supported it, but it was flawed as the years have demonstrated. Back to Lord Bonomate and it has been quoted already, but it is worth saying again, practically, of any legislation if M.D. says this. It solves the problems of the loose and variable use of language in that original act. It should be a real incentive for better enforcement of the law. Endorsements are well worth, as I say, any piece of legislation. I think that another useful quotation of the report is from animal welfare organisations. This is an opportunity to rethink the solutions to the problem of wild animal predations in agricultural land. We need to do more of this. I think that it must be a collective effort. I agree and I think that opportunities make improvements subject to the licensing scheme, which I will come to in a moment, and the amendments that lie ahead. Where we are now is at last eliminating, so far as is legally possible, the use of dogs predating on wild mammals for sport. Sport, which was sometimes, and often, I would say, used in the guise of pest control. That's gone. Broadly, we have the use of two dogs above ground and one below. This is with a view to preventing, as I understand it, pack behaviour to ensure control and to ensure that this is, as a last resort, the swift and humane dispatch of the mammal. I emphasise as that last resort after other measures have failed. Turning now to scent trails, which will be banned except for individual dogs, most two dogs for training purposes, such as police dogs and so on. In England and Wales, experience, I understand, has demonstrated that this has developed as frankly a means of continuing hunting foxes with packs. The 2002 act was flouted, not just as we know through criminal prosecutions, but I also saw this in myself, the Satan Donald Cameron, and a dark rainy day some years back, I came across quite unexpectedly in the middle of the border hills, folk on quad bikes, headlights blazing, careering downwards as they followed the pack of hounds, and I saw for myself what a pack does to an exhausted animal, tearing it to shreds, strewn across the hillsides, and the parts of the animal, whatever it was, being retrieved by the people on the bikes. There was nothing humane in that, and no one would be out in the wilds and weather policing that, and I saw it just by chance. So this ban on both scent trails and hunting with packs is to be welcomed. Yes, I will. Rachel Hamilton. Well, I was just about to say to Christine Grahame, obviously that's an illegal activity that you witness. Did you report it to the police and on which day was it? Christine Grahame. You're asking me for the day I said some years back. I actually was my son's birthday so I should be able to remember it was January the 14th some years back, but the other issue I have is I couldn't identify the people because when they saw me there there was a row of landrovers watching it, and when they saw me, I just accidentally there, they soon scooted up the hill and disappeared. So it was impossible to actually identify the people, but it did happen, I say to Mrs Hamilton. It did happen and it shocked me and it shocked me that to me it was being done in a surreptitious manner in the middle of nowhere on a day when nobody would be about except the people following the hunt and me by chance. Now I want to go on to rabbits. Now rabbits are included because we keep going on about the rabbits, as the hunting of those, as the police have said, was a device and provided an alibi for hair-corsing. We're out repeating the quotes I gave to the convener of the committee, both Police Scotland and the Procurator Fiscal supported this as it would assist in hair-corsing prosecutions, and this is all about having law which is detailed and effective. So there are also other more humane methods of rabbit control. Yes, I will. There's absolutely no doubt that everybody here wants to do all they can to prevent hair-corsing, but it's a lazy option to include rabbits because there's no suggestion that there's any welfare issue surrounding rough shooting to shoot rabbits. The police and the Procurator actually were surprised when we raised that issue and actually did question whether it was a sledgehammer they're cracking out. So can you tell me what other steps this bill takes to help address hair-corsing? We have time and I will give Miss Graham her time. Thank you very much. The other steps are towards the two dogs and all the other things that are within the act that apply to all my mammals, but if you want to suggest that Police Scotland have got this wrong and it doesn't give them more evidence, please take it up with them at your committee. Turning to the exception to the exception and the crucial proposed licensing scheme, and I know that the minister's response is that this must await the bill moving through its amendment stages, but I am compromising so far regarding the licensing regime, the details of which are crucial, and I'm pleased that Nature Scotland, the Scottish Government and all stakeholders, which will of course include farmers and gamekeepers, many of whom I meet or for whom I have high regard, will be fully engaged in this. I think this detail is extremely important if some of us in this chamber, like myself, are compromising by even accepting a licensing scheme. I am prepared to go that far, but I need to see the details of licensing that will not be abused. The minister says that this will be a high bar, and if it is to proceed so it must be, and I am reserving my view on that until they are published. I also state to my colleague Rachel Hamilton that she might feel a bit angry. I need no lessons in representing my rural constituency, which I have done now for the last 23 years more than she has done. I will never be following the next stages with interest. Thank you. We move to closing speeches, and I call on Colin Smyth up to six minutes please. I should say that we do have time in hand for some interventions. I'm sure that there will be very many every time I get up to speak, Presiding Officer. Thank you. Today's debate has shown why this bill is not only needed, but I have to say it's long overdue. I do welcome the fact that there is a consensus to support the principles of the bill, but it's also clear from the debate that not only is ending hunting with packs of dogs unfinished business, the bill itself is very much unfinished business. We need to deliver a better bill than the one that is before us, one that is effective and one that does not seek to close existing loopholes by creating new ones such as a licensing scheme. It's very clear from the debate that those who oppose the two-dog limit do so, not because they believe that they should licence the use of more than two dogs in certain circumstances. They actually believe that they are using more than two dogs in all circumstances, and I think that they will seek to build those through the two-dog limit by using a licensing scheme. The position is that, in the Scottish Countryside Alliance said in its written evidence to the Rain Committee in a quote, if fox control is to be effective in Scotland, a restriction to two dogs would make that impossible. I'll take an intervention on that. I thank Mr Smith for taking the intervention. First putting record, I take it very offensively, and I'm sure everybody on these Conservative benches that we don't hold animal welfare standards in high regard, and that's what we want to achieve through this bill. However, will you admit that we heard evidence that, in many circumstances, the limiting of the number of dogs to two could actually increase the potential for animal welfare issues through prolonged chase and potential for those dogs to catch a fox or whatever? So there are circumstances where two dogs would make animal welfare less acceptable, or the issues that they face. I think that Finlay Carson gives the game away. He said very clearly that he opposes a limit of two dogs, and I think that that reiterates the Scottish Countryside Alliance view that it opposes a limit of two dogs. Not that it wants a licensing scheme, it actually does not want a limit of two dogs. I don't agree with that position. In the committee, we're provided with numerous examples illustrating that wild mammals can be controlled effectively using two dogs. However, it is nonetheless a clear position that Finlay Carson has and others like the Scottish Countryside Alliance have as well. However, what isn't clear, what is utterly contradictory, I have to say, is the Government's position to say that, on the one hand, it wants to limit the number of dogs to two for animal welfare reasons, but on the other hand disregard animal welfare considerations by issuing a licence for the use of more than two dogs without defining the criteria for that licence at all. The minister herself said to the committee on 29 June that I quote, the two dog limit is based on the fact that it will substantially reduce the ability to chase and kill. I agree, but the minister ignores her own words by continuing to allow the use of packs of dogs. The minister told the committee that the most important element of licensing was for the dogs to be under control, but as the SSPCA said in its evidence in a quote, keeping a dog under control that has been trained to go for a scent or to attack an animal is unless you physically restrain it, damn near impossible. I'll certainly will, yeah. Can I just probe the member on his thoughts about why he thinks it's acceptable to ignore the comments of the senior Scottish judge, Lord Bonomy, who looked into this, who said that there is certain terrain on which two dogs would not allow a farmer, a land manager or an environmentalist to carry out a lawful activity of flushing an animal to weight and control. The reality is that Lord Bonomy was not asked to look at the animal welfare issues, he was asked to look at the effectiveness of the existing bill and the implementation, he was not asked to look at the animal welfare issues and I believe that animal welfare issues should be prominent in this bill and that's obviously a difference between myself and the minister and Lord Bonomy wasn't asked to look at those animal welfare issues at all. The minister told if I've got time, Presiding Officer, I can certainly do that. I do indeed, Rachel Hamilton. A little bit for members because Bonomy actually said that the licensing scheme is, I think, what makes it viable to have the two dog limit. There must be circumstances in which people can justify that it is appropriate to have more dogs and licensing will allow for that. So let's stop arguing about what Bonomy said because that is what he said. Colin Smyth. Several members are used to, obviously, quoting Lord Bonomy. Let me just tell you what Donald Cameron just said that Lord Bonomy said about the licensing scheme. He said that it's not clear, this is Lord Bonomy, that establishing a formal licensing would do more for the protection of wild animals than amending the legislation. The same difficulties of proof and enforcement remain. That was Lord Bonomy's quote that Donald Cameron said. He didn't give a result. If any person wants to make an invention, he can do so, or he can keep shouting from a setting to a position that's entirely up to him. But we can keep going back and forward about quotes from Lord Bonomy. What is absolutely clear is that Lord Bonomy was not asked to look at the animal welfare issues and it's absolutely clear from the evidence that the ability to chase and kill a fox is increased by using a pack of dogs far more than it is by limiting that to two dogs. It's my belief that the licensing that Donald Cameron was referring to was not with regards to a due dog limit. So the licensing is absolutely crucial when there's a two dog limit. So we're talking about different things here. And he was absolutely clear that licensing would still bring the same difficulties of proof and enforcement with a pack of dogs. That doesn't change just because you have a licence in your pocket, Mr Carson. The minister stated to the committee following the evidence that I am back to the issue of how you actually restrain a pack of dogs. The minister said in a quote that it's self-evident that it's easier to keep control of a small number of dogs than a larger pack of dogs. Two is also the maximum number of dogs permitted in England, in Wales. Something that Conservative members seem to have managed to forget about today. But the minister is saying one thing, but this bill does another. Who would have thought that the current UK Government were more progressive and fox hunting than the Scottish Government was when it comes to a limitation on the number of dogs? Ariana Burgess says that she supports and the green position is to support Labour's position against licensing. The problem is that the SNP Green Government is proposing a bill that includes licensing because of the Green Party's decision to opt out of fuel sports and animal welfare when it came to that particular bute house agreement. As a result of that, the SNP has been given a free pass to ignore Ariana Burgess's views and the Green Party's views. That, I have to say, is disappointing that why animal welfare wasn't given a far higher prominence. I repeat what I said in my opening speech. Labour will bring forward the amendment to remove licensing. If others vote to continue the use of more dogs, one of the things that has been suggested by the Government's own Scottish Animal Welfare Commission in groups such as one kind is that the international consensus principles for ethical wildlife control should be used to guide decision making on any licence. One of the big issues raised by a number of members is the lack of detail, the lack of criteria for any particular licence scheme. That is why many people are incredibly sceptical of its inclusion. Five months ago, I brought a member's debate to this chamber, calling for Scotland to lead the way in how we deal with wildlife intervention by incorporating in those seven principles in law to embed them into Scottish Government and societal practice of wildlife management. The member must conclude now. Which of the principles of wildlife ethical management are not currently being met? It is absolutely clear to me that, in the circumstances, it is not the issue that minimises the impact on animal welfare by using a pack of dogs, far more than it is if you were limiting that to two dogs. It is very clear in that area that it would not be compatible with those ethical principles. The Government and the Scottish Government say that they are very much aligned to those particular principles when it comes to what the licence scheme will see. Will the test of that be whether or not the Government is prepared to incorporate those principles into the bill? If you could conclude, please, Mr Smith. I certainly will, Presiding Officer. There are numerous issues that have been highlighted on why the bill is very much unfinished business. Labour will work with the Government to see if we can maximise the importance of animal welfare on that bill. However, we will not support a bill that continues to try to close some loopholes by creating other loopholes that increase the impact on animal welfare. Presiding Officer, the stage 1 debate is an important one because of its implications for improving animal welfare for the rural sector and for the best management of wildlife across Scotland. It is very little surprise that a wide variety of stakeholder groups have been expressing their views to MSPs over the past few months. It is also little surprise that opinion is sharply divided over the merits of the bill. Jim Fairlie, I cannot compete in terms of his professional expertise, but I have been interested in the bill because, in Persia, I live amongst communities that will be directly affected by the bill. Communities, I want to stress at the outset, who want to see the highest standards of animal welfare adopted everywhere. They want good land management, which safeguards that welfare, but which also enhances our countryside and preserves the jobs and the livelihoods connected to it. Despite what Mr Smith might allege, I wholeheartedly and so do my colleagues support them in those aspirations. The main challenge of this bill, as I see it, is to deliver, at the same time, better animal welfare and protect the best interests of the rural economy and all those who live and work in it. That challenge is tough, but we will succeed if we deliver the crucial amendments to this bill as it currently stands. In other words, we have to deliver good law. Good law, if I can remind the Parliament from previous debates in this chamber, is the basis for effective legislation, and as such it requires the following. A clarity of purpose, to be strong in its evidence base, to be workable, to be accepted by the public and to be understood in simple language. On this last point, this bill, as it is currently drafted, has run into some trouble, despite the best intentions to resolve matters with the 2002 act, which was deemed to include too many inconsistencies and ambiguities. The deliberations of the rain committee when discussing this issue with the minister made very clear that difficulties about language and the intended meaning remain. We have seen examples from previous legislation passed in this Parliament on what happens when inconsistencies and ambiguities remain. Just a query of Liz Smith, whether, given what she says, she disagrees with Lord Bonomy's quote, which has been used a number of times this afternoon, that this bill is very well crafted pre-safel legislation that solves the problems that he identified about loose and variable language. That seems to contradict Liz Smith's contribution. Liz Smith, I entirely accept what Lord Bonomy has said, that the committee minister is asking for specific commitments to improve this bill in terms of its language and to ensure that we do not have any of the ambiguities and the inconsistencies remaining. I note with regard to that. The rain committee has also made a very specific request that the Scottish Government should provide additional information about the licensing. Yes, it is true that you have provided some, but as Christine Grahame rightly pointed out, there is not sufficient evidence within that to ensure that we are moving in the right direction. Again, I come back to previous legislation in this Parliament. I know exactly what has happened when the information that under PINSA bill has not been as precise as it should have been, because it ends up in bad law, and that is something that we have to avoid. No-one doubts for a minute that crimes remain within the countryside because, as Rachael Hamilton put it in committee, there is a small minority of 11 individuals operating in our countryside. They are determined to break the law and kill or maim animals, and it is vitally important that those crimes are detected in the perpetrators prosecuted. However, it is just as important that the law is clear, both Finlay Carson and Jim Fairley raised questions at committee, citing scenarios where, unless the law was clarified, there would be doubt in people's minds as to how they should stay on the right side of the law, because the definition of intent was unclear and that could not be measured, and I agree with them on that point. We come to this issue about rabbits being included in the definition of mammals, and it is important that no-one doubts the minister's intentions to address illegal hair-coursing, as we all do. However, by including rabbits in the definition, there will clearly be unintended consequences on rough shoots and on various trials, such as kennel clubs, because the inclusion of rabbits as mammals might sound very good in theory, in fact it does sound very good in theory, but the practice tells a different story, and so we ask the Scottish Government again to look at this. Now, let me come to this second big issue about licensing. Any licensing system must be both understood and workable so that it can be fair and practical for farmers and land managers to protect their livestock, their livelihoods and species like nesting birds. Rachel Hamilton mentioned the Cape or Cayley, because failure to manage the predators and indeed undermine the control toolbox appropriately has real life consequences for our wildlife, and it is very clear from what many stakeholders are saying that there are concerns about how effective pest control can be managed in some circumstances with just two dogs. In fact, Lord Bonomy himself said that in some instances that is impractical. There are very serious concerns about how flexible the proposals are, because at the moment there are far too many stakeholders who are telling us that that is just not the case. At the end of the day, this bill remains controversial. Nine major organisations supporting the bill, ten major organisations opposing it, and that is not mentioning the hundreds of individuals who have expressed their views to us as MSPs, again heavily divided. There are far too many unanswered questions and too little evidence to underpin the bill, which although not intended, leaves the rural sector heavily exposed yet again, which is why there are so many unhappy stakeholders. The balance is surely to permit legitimate predation control by dogs and to improve animal welfare, but, as yet, this bill does not have that correct balance. I would like to begin my closing remarks just by reflecting again on what I believe is a comprehensive set of legal requirements provided by this bill. I would just like to look first of all at the offences, because we have not done that today. Those include the offence of hunting a wild mammal using a dog, as a landowner to knowingly cause or permit another to hunt on land that you own, and as a dog owner to knowingly cause or permit another to hunt using a dog that you own or are responsible for. Those are three robust offences and all of them carry three robust penalties. Where there are exceptions to the offence, those are available only for defined purposes and separately with statutory conditions. Just to take the example of section 3, which is the exception for management of wild animals above ground, this is available for the purpose of preventing serious damage to livestock, woodland or crops, preventing the spread of disease and protecting human health. I hope that the chamber will accept that those are important purposes. Of course, despite being important purposes, the bill goes on to require conditions on their exercise, namely, and again in the case of section 3, that there will only be two yacht dogs used or more via the licensing scheme where no other option exists, that any dog used is under control. This is a really important provision because it puts a strong onus on anyone who would purport to use a dog in the countryside. Of course, whether a dog is under control or not should be readily identifiable. It requires that the dogs do not join with others to form a pack—again, a readily visible and identifiable issue when not complied with—and that the permission of the landowner has been obtained and that the animal being flushed is dispatched as soon as reasonably practicable. That one example that those defined purposes and with robust conditions, I believe, allows me to strongly refute any suggestion that this bill does not present a comprehensive ban on illegal hunting. Having set that out, I would like to move on to the interaction between the two-dog limit and the licensing scheme, which has dominated much of the discussion today yet I will. Thank you, Minister, for taking that intervention. Earlier, if I heard it correctly, I made a serious and somewhat sweeping allegation that 10 groups in Scotland routinely break the law by hunting with dogs. Is the minister aware of any evidence to support this claim? I, with all due respect to the member, am not here to speak to the contributions that have been made by members in the chamber. I cannot even recall which member made that contribution. I think that Rachel Hamilton raised the point of order at the time and she was told that it was not one. It is not something that I am concerned with responding to, but thank you for your contribution. However, as I said, I wanted to talk about the more important issue of the interaction between the two-dog limit and the licensing scheme. I am confident that the two-dog limit is the right approach. I am confident of that because the majority of wildlife in Scotland already does not use dogs, because where dogs are used, in some instances, two is already the number that are generally used, including in deer stocking and with invasive non-native species. Finally, because it has already been instituted in England and Wales, that has been remarked upon. However, Lord Bonomy was clear that there are certain terrain where control needs to be carried out, but where two dogs would not allow individuals to successfully carry out that legal activity of flushing wildlife as part of legitimate control. I believe that in this Parliament we have to guard against, as we take action to end a legal activity, impinging on lawful and legitimate activity, which is undertaken for a range of reasons throughout our rural country. The two-dog limit, together with that narrowly defined but practical and available where necessary licensing scheme, I believe, achieves that. I am happy to. Does the minister accept, though, that when she said to the committee that a licence to be construed is the option that is available when there are no other options? The difficulty that people have is that the Government has not really set out what that actually means in practice. One of the options that is being proposed is that we incorporate in this bill those ethical principles that I have talked about in several occasions, as effectively the guide towards what would be used in any licence scheme, not with standing, I do not support a licence scheme. Rachael Hamilton raised the point that, in what way would a licence not meet those ethical principles? It is not the scheme itself, it would be the individual application that would have to be consistent with those ethical principles. Surely that is one way to set out in legislation and to deal with the concerns that people have that there is a lack of detail as the bill currently stands. I have already said in the chamber, in the premise of another debate, that I am interested in the ethical principles and the way that they can be applied to the various pieces of wildlife legislation and work that the Government is undertaking, and that is no different with the hunting with dogs bill, so I am considering that application. Coming back to that point about the two-dog limit and the licensing scheme interaction, some have called for more liberal terms for the scheme to ensure that it will rise to what it sees as an essential purpose, while others have called for no licensing scheme at all. Some members have been clear that the licensing scheme, in their view, is essential to operate effectively in certain circumstances. What I would say to that is that the scheme is designed to operate on an extraordinary basis. Therefore, where it is truly essential, it will be available, where it is not essential, where two dogs or another method of control would work. The licensing scheme will not be essential. If I can talk about the content of the scheme, there has been a bit of a myth arising this afternoon that there is no detail available. I would like to clarify that. Sections 4 and 8 of the bill point to a series of criteria that will be met as part of the framework for the licensing scheme. It speaks to the particular species of animal having to be confirmed that it will have to be granted to a particular person, and it sets out the test that would have to be made. I feel like I am just about to address the point that Finlay Carson might raise, but I will give him the opportunity anyway. My question is again about licensing. Are you going to be bringing forward amendments that will address some of the worries and concerns that stakeholders have about 14-day limits or whatever? Will that be on the face of the bill, or are we going to have to wait until the bill is passed at stage 3 for you to come forward with details? I struggle to see how amendments to primary legislation could be brought after stage 3, so I am not sure what Mr Carson is referring to. However, the 14-day licence period is on the face of the bill, so if that were to be amended, it would have to be by the parliamentary process. I hope that that clarifies it. I have already said, however, that we cannot finalise that accompanying guidance until the final form of the bill is known. Maybe that is what Mr Carson is referring to, but I commit to continuing engagement to raising awareness of the requirements. I feel that I am running a little bit out of time, Presiding Officer. We have until 20 past, Minister. Okay, go ahead, thank you. Rachel Hamilton. Tell us, Minister, if the accompanying guidance are the details. Minister. Sorry, I do not understand that question. The accompanying guidance, everybody is looking for more clarity, more detail on the licensing scheme. You have said that you will publish accompanying guidance. What is the accompanying guidance if it is not the detail, and why is it so late? First of all, for Rachel Hamilton's benefit, it is not late. That is a very standard approach to developing accompanying guidance. You cannot develop the guidance to accompany a statutory regime until the final form of the statute is known. That makes perfect sense. However, I was about to go on to say that Mr Carson, when he was responding on behalf of the committee, asked for oral updates to the committee on that. I am more than happy to do that. I have no concern whatsoever with keeping the committee, with keeping stakeholders engaged with the development of the guidance. Having covered that, I would like to refer to the members who would like to see no licensing scheme at all in this bill. I am, of course, open to hearing views from them, as I have been throughout, and indeed of any member or group who wishes to raise them with me. However, I do have to ask, as I think I did with Colin Smyth earlier, why those members would think it acceptable to ignore the findings of Lord Bonomy and the comments specifically that he made. Minister, if you could just give me one moment, please. Members, I would be grateful if we could hear the minister. Thank you, please continue. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Yet, why they think they could ignore Lord Bonomy's findings on terrain? I suppose how they would explain to hill farmers whose lambs on hillground, where lamping is not possible, where enclosure isn't possible, why they would simply have to be allowed to be predated on, or to environmental groups who need more than two dogs to successfully deal with invasive non-native species as they are doing on Orkney, as they are doing on Uist. You would be saying to them that, even in tightly restricted circumstances, the option of more dogs wasn't available. I don't think that that's reasonable, so I would ask them to remember that the bill provides for a licensing scheme only where no other option exists and that, for that tightly defined circumstance, it will be overseen by NatureScot. As we all consider the ban, the two dog limit and the exceptional licensing scheme, I would ask members to reflect, as has been done a number of times this afternoon on Lord Bonomy's evidence, where he said that the licensing scheme is, I think, what makes it viable to have the two dog limit. There must be circumstances in which people can justify that it's appropriate to have more dogs and the licensing scheme will allow that. Importantly, he went on to say that the idea of keeping licences restricted is also a good one, and I intend to do that. If I have time, I'll just briefly touch on a couple of other issues that were mentioned. Firstly, I'm not sure that Rachel Hamilton could substantiate her claim that I don't understand rural Scotland, or indeed that the man behind me doesn't, or a lot of the men and women behind me, but I'll leave her to consider that. The minister cannot take an intervention as we are concluding to be. Very briefly, I'll confirm to Breastress Wishart that my official spot with Police Scotland, their dog handlers, after the committee session, were content that the bill won't negatively impact on how they train their dogs. I will consider the points about dogs underground. I think that points have been very well made. The Tories seem very concerned about the inclusion of rabbits within protection. I believe that it's right to protect rabbits as we do hares from being chased and killed by dogs, and I'll continue to defend that. Times against me, but just to conclude, the chasing and killing of a wild mammal with a dog for sport or otherwise has no place in modern Scotland. This hunting with dogs bill will finish the work that was started 20 years ago by delivering a comprehensive ban. By introducing this bill, I want to both close loopholes of the past, which have allowed an unlawful activity to persist, but also take action to prevent others from opening. I'm doing that in pursuit of the highest possible animal welfare standards, whilst recognising that we're a rural nation and that we must have access to legitimate control methods. The bill has been designed to balance the needs of the lawful operation in our countryside with my determination and the Government's determination to once and for all end illegal hunting. That concludes this stage 1 debate on hunting with dogs Scotland bill. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, and there is one question to be put as a result of today's business. The question is that motion 6428, in the name of Mary McCallan, on hunting with dogs Scotland bill at stage 1, be agreed. Are we all agreed? I've been notified of a no vote online. The Parliament therefore is not agreed and we will move to vote. There'll be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.