 We will now proceed with the division on amendment 19. Members should cast their votes now. Before I close the vote, I call Co-Cab Stewart to cast a proxy vote on behalf of Stuart McMillan. I will not repeat that every single time during the afternoon, but I will just call Ms Stewart. The vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment 19, in the name of Ariane Burgess, is yes, 24, no, 96. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. We move to group 2, field sports. I call amendment 20, in the name of Rachel Hamilton. Grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. I point out that if amendment 64 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 65, as there is a preemption. Rachel Hamilton to move amendment 20 and speak to all amendments in the group. Amendments 20 and 21 and their subsequent amendments, in my name, seek to allow for an exception for rough shooting and field trials. Throughout the entire passage of this Bill, we have heard a strong and sustained case for these two activities to be exempt from the two dog limit in light of the inclusion of rabbit in the Bill. At the heart of these exceptions is the right for people to continue lawful and legitimate activities that effectively manage wildlife and ensure that pests are controlled in a humane manner. I do not use pests in the lightest sense in this description. There has been a lack of evidence throughout this process to show that using two or more dogs during a rough shoot has any impact on animal welfare of rabbits or foxes. We know that gun dogs do not operate in packs and that argument has been made many times throughout the passage of the Bill nor do they chase wild mammals. The entire process of flushing and humanely dispatching wild mammals is done effectively, efficiently and with the highest regard for the highest animal welfare standards. These amendments reflect the minister's wordings from rain committee correspondence. Simply put, if an exception is not accepted, rough shooters find themselves falling foul of the Bill, which ultimately creates a grey area around rough shooting, whether it is the implementation of the ethical principles in wildlife management, a possible snaring ban, the limiting of hunting and rough shooting to two dogs. I believe that this is an important argument to be making and we should be looking at this from an evidence-based approach to wildlife management. My amendments in this section in particular offer a way around this that could help strike that right balance within the Bill. Amendment 63, 65 and 66 in my name remove reference to sports in section 6 of the Bill. Reference to sport in this section of the Bill completely and deliberately misunderstands the nature of hunting. It reinforces the impression that activities and land management activities such as deer stalking or game shooting are only about sport. However, we know that those activities play a vital role in the harvesting of food, pest control, wildlife management in general. That evidence was set out as clear as day to the rain committee by stakeholders such as the NFUS, BASC, SCA and SLE, yet the Scottish Government have chosen in my opinion to all along listen but ultimately ignore the evidence. The argument advanced 20 years ago by those opponents of hunting was that they had no problem with dogs being used for pest control using a pack to flush to guns but wanted to end what they called hunting in brackets for sport. It is unhelpful, unnecessary and misleading to reduce these activities to the single purpose of sport when in reality they are undertaken for a variety of purposes. Moreover, those purposes are essential to Scotland's food security and biodiversity. Colin Smyth's amendments in this group, which seek to remove any exceptions for falconry, will treat falconry solely as a sport, a notion for which the reasons I have set out above should be removed from the Bill. As my colleague Edward Mountain said at stage 2, you need to look no further than the roofs of the chamber in which we sit, where falcons are used to keep pigeons out of gutters for an example of the use of falcons not relating to sport. Whilst that does not involve mammals, there are examples of where falcons are used to control predators having been searched for or flushed from cover by dogs. Presiding Officer, I would just like to make the point. I tried to intervene on Ariane Burgess to ultimately help my colleague in making perhaps bending the truth on one of her statements in the previous groupings. One of the primary drivers of population decline of Cappacaili, among other ground nesting birds, is predation by foxes. That is stated by NatureScot on the website. I would like to give Ariane Burgess the opportunity to correct her statement for the record on that point. I move the amendments in my name. Thank you, Colin Smyth, to speak to amendment 60 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Amendment 60 and 64 in my name would remove providing quarry for falconry as a permitted use of dogs. Falconry creates welfare concerns for both the bird of prey and the animal being hunted. The Rain Committee questioned the inclusion of falconry in its stage 1 report commenting that it required more information as to her a quote, why an exception for falconry has been included in the scope of the bill and also raised concerns about section 6.2e, which requires that, and I quote again, the wild mammal which has been searched for, stalked or flushed as shot dead are killed by a bird of prey. When I brought an amendment forward at stage 2, the minister said that she could not support it because it would ban an otherwise lawful activity by the back door, because there has been no consultation on any proposal to ban falconrys from hunting, and that does not fall within what is intended by the bill. However, the issue was widely discussed and evidence was received during stage 1 of the bill by the committee, otherwise it would not have featured in their report, arguing that there should be no action against something that is clearly cruel because you did not include it in the first draft of the bill is not a strong argument. I also remind the minister that, during the passage of the animals and wildlife penalties, protections and powers Scotland act 2020, the Government introduced amendments at stage 2 to ban the shooting of sails and subsequently supported an amendment at stage 3 to protect mountain hares. Both of those amendments were welcome, but neither of them had been subject to consultation by the Scottish Government at the time the bill was passed. They were the right thing to do. The Government has completely failed to answer the basic question of how flushing a wild mammal to be killed by a waiting bird of prey can be considered less cruel than it being killed by a dog. Amendments 20, 26, 29, 32 and 67 in the name of Rachel Hamilton would add a new exception for rough shooting and 21, 27, 30, 33 and 68 would create a new exception for gun dog field trials. Neither of those have a two dog limit as long as the intention is not to use the dogs as a pack, which is inconsistent with the rest of the bill and risk the creation of loopholes. However, I do believe that there is a legitimate concern that the bill lacks some clarity in relation to rough shooting. I believe that there is a need for far more explicit guidance on this matter. I note that the Government has now amended the explanatory notes on the bill and it states that, under this exception, several people could use one or two dogs to flush separate wild mammals as quarry for shooting, providing they did not allow the dogs to join together with other groups of one or two dogs and, for example, flush out the same quarry. There are clearly practical challenges over how you enforce such measures when there will be more than two dogs present. I hope that the minister will say more about this in her comments, both for the benefit of those who carry out rough shooting but also those who are concerned that a loophole could be emerging. I therefore urge members to support the amendments to remove falconry from the exception, including the bill, and to listen carefully to what the minister has to say regarding rough shooting. I would like to speak in support of Colin Smyth's amendment 60 and 64. The bill would remove the exception for the use of up to two dogs in falconry for sport. Yes, falconry is legal in Scotland, but it does not justify the use of dogs in falconry. The bill seeks to constrain the situations in which dogs can be used to hunt with hunt wild mammals. If the hunting must occur, the use of dogs should be a last resort, so why should there be an exception from this offence for sport of all purposes? Further, we cannot allow this exception to be another loophole for fox hunts, like in England, where hunts have been known to carry birds of prey as a token presence to circumvent the two-dog limit there. I urge members to consider every exception from this point of view. Could that be used as a loophole? Firstly, amendments 20, 26, 29, 32 and 67 are in the name of Rachel Hamilton regarding rough shooting, which has been discussed at length throughout the bill process. I listened carefully today. I listened throughout the additional scrutiny sections that are specifically dedicated to rough shooting that the committee organised, and I listened to all the contributions made there. I have heard a lot of evidence, particularly about the behaviours of dogs that are involved in rough shooting. Of course, those are gun dogs, and it includes that they will not chase, they will not kill, wild mammals, they will not form packs, and they will always be under strict control. However, all this very much is what the bill will require of them, so it gives me confidence that they will be able to comply in the aftermath of the passage of the bill should it be supported today. Of course, the bill as drafted allows for most permutations of rough shooting to continue, but that is within the new rules. I think that, although some may need to adapt behaviours, usually making a minimal change. A minimal change is justified for the sake of consistency, and when it is set against the risk of creating a new loophole, where people would be able to take as many dogs as they might like, say that they were rough shooting when, in fact, they were illegally hunting. That could, I think, besmarch the actual and legitimate activity of rough shooting. Equally, I could not justify creating an exemption for regulation of rough shooters, which, although not an important activity, is largely recreational, when, for example, on the other hand, I would be asking farmers to comply with a very strict two-dog limit when they are protecting their livestock, or when environmental managers are seeking to control invasive non-native species. It is a strength of the bill that we regulate, all who would purport to use dogs in the course of hunting in the countryside. As I have already said, there is the risk of having an unlimited number of dogs creating a smokescreen. For those reasons, just as I could not at stage two, I cannot support amendments that would create an exception. However, if the bill is passed, I have already committed that I will work with the sector to develop guidance on rough shooting so that everyone can have an understanding of what to expect in the countryside following the passage of the bill. I think that that will rise to some of what Colin Smith was asking for. My comments on Rachel Hamilton's amendments 21, 27, 30, 33 and 68 are similar. I do not think that an exception for field trials is necessary or justified. I have spoken to stakeholders such as the Kennel Club very recently to discuss the implications of the bill on field trials. Those discussions have led me to conclude that the bill as drafted does not prevent field trials from taking place. I know that that is something that the Kennel Club acknowledged. Therefore, I will not be supporting this amendment either. I move to Colin Smith's amendments to remove falconry from section 6. My comments here are much the same as they were at stage 2. Falconry is a permitted activity in Scotland, and as long as it is done in accordance with all relevant legislation—for example, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981—that remains the case. I know that in falconry dogs are sometimes used to flush wild mammals into the open where they can be taken by birds of prey, and it is therefore right that they come within the scope of the bill and be regulated as other uses of dogs would be in the course of hunting. However, Colin Smith's amendments would remove the ability of a person to use dogs altogether. I understand why some people do not agree with hunting mammals for recreational purposes. However, as things stand, falconry is a lawful form of hunting. As long as dogs are used in accordance with the requirements of this bill, it is not justifiable to single it out here. For those reasons, I cannot support it. Quickly moving on to Rachael Hamilton's amendments 63, 65 and 66. Those would remove the reference to sport from the definitions of game shooting. I am conscious that there are many motivations to undertake those activities. During the discussion of Edward Mountain's very similar amendments on the topic at stage 2, I explained that where, for example, activities such as deer stalking are being done to protect trees, those would fall under section 7, or where it is done to prevent serious damage to crops would be under section 3. The term sport has been included here to distinguish between recreational pursuits and wildlife management or environmental purposes. It will be up to the individual to determine which of the exceptions in the bill their activity falls under. I continue to believe that the term sport is helpful in the context, and I do not support the amendment for that reason. I am concerned about some of the comments that were made during the passage of the bill, particularly the individuals who will not be supporting my amendments today. I believe that rough shooting has not been able to be defined and that the Government has struggled to explain what a rough shoot is. I also believe that, in the context of the bill, rough shooting was overlooked and only considered as we approached the end of stage 2 and when we had to bring together a round table in the committee to hear from stakeholders who were concerned that rough shooting would be captured by this bill. I also do not agree with a number of comments in the chamber today that rough shooting could be used as a cover for any activity. For those who know how rough shooting works, there is a difference between dogs used in different activities. For example, we heard during evidence from the Scottish Gamekeepers Association that there is a difference between a lurcher or a spaniel or a hound and that a working dog is under control. The minister agreed herself that she was confident that individuals were able to control working dogs who were trained to command. I welcome the minister's commitment to produce guidance, which was something that we came to a conclusion on during the passage of stage 2 during the committee, so that is welcome. In conclusion, Presiding Officer— For taking the intervention, would Rachael Hamilton agree with me that rough shooting and gun dog field trials are an important social cohesion and the very fabric of rural life and that they contribute towards a rural economy worth tens of millions of pounds to remote areas, bringing employment throughout the Scottish countryside, protecting and promoting those activities as imperative to preserve and protect the rural way of life? Does she agree with me that Labour, the Greens, have little or no understanding, and along with the Scottish Government, the minister and her civil servants who admitted their knowledge of rough shooting was gained by watching YouTube videos absolutely miss the importance of hunting and rough shooting to rural economy? Some of the amendments that they have brought forward have been ill-thought out, including the inclusion of rabbits in the legislation without any valid or substantiated animal welfare concerns being heard. I thank my colleague Finlay Carson for his intervention. I agree that many of us in the chamber represent rural constituency. Colin Smyth from Labour represents a very rural constituency. I represent a very rural constituency. Mary McCallum represents a rural constituency. We all have individuals in our constituencies who are reliant on the jobs that are created by those particular activities, particularly gamekeepers and others. I agree as well that there has been a lack of evidence to take into account those aspects as we have gone through the committee stages. I won't be supporting Colin Smyth's amendments in this group, but I urge others to support my amendments. Amendment 20 be agreed to? Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Members, you cast their votes now. I call Cokab Stewart. I vote no on behalf of Stuart McMillan. Thank you, Mr Stewart. And the vote is now closed. And the result of the vote on amendment number 20. The name of Rachel Hamilton is yes, 28. No, 90. There were no abstentions. That amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 21 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 20. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move? Moved. That is moved. The question is that amendment 21 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a vote and members should cast their votes now. I call Cokab Stewart. On behalf of Stuart McMillan, I vote no. Thank you, Mr Stewart. I'll make sure that that is recorded and the vote is now closed. And the result of the vote on amendment number 21 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is yes, 27. No, 88. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. We move to group 3, definition of a wild mammal before I call the first amendment. Just a plea to those wishing to speak during the debate, not simply through an intervention. If they could press the request to speak buttons either as soon as possible and certainly before the final speaker gets to the feet, that would be very helpful. With that, I call amendment 22 in the name of Edward Mountain, grouped with amendments 23 and 24. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I rise to speak to the two amendments in my name. One is to remove mink from the bill and the other is to remove rabbits from the bill. Now, I want to talk first of all about mink and remind members before I do when I talk about both of these species and about controlling them. I have no intention ever in my life to increase suffering when you are dealing with a predator or an animal that needs to be removed, so it must be done in a humane way. But let's look at mink. Mink is a non-native invasive species. For those that don't remember, it was introduced in mink farming, and when mink farming no longer became viable, it was released into our environment, into the native pristine environment of Scotland. As such, it is a danger to our flora and fauna. It is an aggressive animal, and for those who have seen it working and operating on the banks of a stream or a river or a burn, you'll see it destroys birds and vols. Birds it could destroy include ducks and ground nesting birds, which are really important, like oyster catchers, sandpipers and red shanks. We need to protect those birds, and should it ever get into a domestic environment, it will certainly kill every chicken in a pen just as simply as that. It is accepted across Scotland that mink are not something we should be welcoming, and I should remind people that the Kengorms National Park Authority had a mink eradication scheme where it encouraged landowners across the national park to destroy mink. It provided mink rafts and, in some cases, traps to allow them to do that. That project was supported by Scottish Natural Heritage at the time, and I believe is still in place. The danger of not controlling non-native invasive species, the Presiding Officer will know, was demonstrated in Orkney when Stoats got in there in 2010. It is unacceptable that we allow that to happen in those environments, and sadly there is no way of Stoats being able to be eradicated. So, why is this Parliament considering making mink more difficult to eradicate when it is destroying our native flora and fauna? I also now want to talk about rabbits. I have a real problem with rabbits being included in the bill, because I listened to the cabinet secretary speak at the amendment stage 2. There were a couple of reasons why she said that rabbits should be included in the bill. The first one was that they could be used as a cover for hair coursing. Absolutley not. Rabbits and hares are significantly different, and those people who live and work in the countryside know that they are different, can identify them, and those people who seek to use them as cover for an illegal activity should really have the book thrown at them, but they don't need further protection. The other reason that the cabinet secretary said that they needed further protection is that she felt that they felt the same pain as foxes, yet in the same breath, in the very same bill, she is protecting rats, or she is not protecting rats. She is not protecting rats, cabinet secretary, because you don't feel that they are as good as rabbits or foxes. My problem is that if most of our constituents saw a wild rabbit come into their house, they would probably usher it out. If they saw a rat come into their house, they would be straight on to the local council demanding that it would be killed and a rodent control officer was sent round. On that particular point, I wondered if the member had heard any evidence to suggest why a dog can be used to kill a rat under the bill, but not a rabbit is better in welfare terms? I have heard no evidence that there is any difference, but it is different because rats aren't cuddly. When it comes to rabbits, they are a real issue when it comes to land management. Cabinet secretary, I am sure that I don't need to remind you of the expression of breeding-like rabbits. One doe rabbit can produce 100 kits a year, and if you multiply that up during the course of the year, that is a huge amount of rabbits. On one particular area of land in Scotland that I managed, which was a SSI for Mile Grassland and for Scottish Pinewoods, we had to resort to killing over 10,000 rabbits a year for four years to allow that habitat to recover. We needed all the tools that we had available to us, the legal ones, to control those rabbits. Some of the things that we engaged in were shooting the rabbits and long nets, which I had mentioned to the cabinet secretary before, where you need dogs to flush rabbits into nets when they are out away from their holes and then for you to cull them. So, flushing from cover and taking these rabbits on is particularly important. The cabinet secretary also said that she was concerned that people would use the cover that they were flushing rabbits when they were hunting for hares, which I find an odd contribution from the cabinet secretary, because I'm sure she knows that hares and rabbits live in very different habitats. Hares mainly in open fields, rabbits in close vegetation, so they can go from one hole to the other and can seek the protection, so they cannot really be confused. I would also mention to the Parliament how important it is that we are not squeamish about dealing with animals that need to be removed from our habitat. I'm sure I don't need to remind the Parliament that Scottish Natural Heritage sanctioned the killing of ruddy ducks, which were an invasive species and mating with our native ducks in Scotland, or the removal of hedgehogs from barra, or particularly when it comes to native species, some of the work that's going on to control deer, some of the headlines that this Parliament will see about controlling deer at the moment I have to question, but it appears that they don't seem to need the same protection. I'm seeing hines being shot heavily pregnant in calf, by government agencies, and in some cases by organisations that say they're doing it in the public interest. I question that when the animals are left shot where they're lying. So we cannot be squeamish though about controlling animals if we do it in the right way and in the right format. Therefore, I seek this Parliament to allow land managers to have the ability to kill mink, an invasive, non-native species that is destroying our flora and fauna without control, and for the Parliament to give its approval for rabbits to be removed from this bill, because there is no need for them to be there in the same way that there's no need for rats to be there. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you. Mr Monty, could I ask you to move the amendment 22, please? Oh, sorry. Presiding Officer, I didn't hear. I moved the amendment to my name. Very grateful. I now call Rachel Hamilton to speak to amendment 24 and other amendments in the group, Ms Alpha. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Amendment 24 in my name would add an exemption within this bill for hunting wild rabbits. There is an established need to control rabbit populations by this means. However, I recognise that simply creating a blanket exemption would potentially provide an excuse for the legal act of hair coursing, but I'm yet to be convinced of that. By exempting rabbits but only where landowners' permission has been explicitly obtained, this amendment would prevent those engaged in hair poaching from being able to avoid liability by claiming to be hunting rabbits. The amendment would therefore more effectively meet the Government's policy objective and assist Police Scotland with enforcement, which it obviously is struggling with right now, without harming the ability of land managers to effectively and humanely control rabbits. Presiding Officer, this bill means that all rabbits will now have to be shot, and there is no evidence to provide support to the assumption that flushing rabbits to be swiftly dispatched by dogs is a welfare concern. However, I'd like to hear more from the Minister on that. As my colleague Edward Mountain has so eloquently set out, there is also a failure to understand the fundamental differences between rabbits and hares. Rabbits do not engage in long chases, unlike hares, which live permanently above ground. Rabbits spend most of their time, as he described, below ground, only coming out to graze and feed. There are fundamental differences between the two species. I will be supporting the amendment from my colleague Edward Mountain. There are a couple of members who wish to participate. I invite them to be relatively brief. Firstly, Colin Smyth. Amendment 22, in the name of Edward Mountain, to remove mink from the protection afforded by the bill in amendments 23 and 24, to remove rabbits from this protection. I do fear that it could create a loophole that allows for the unlimited use of dogs to chase and kill rabbits. Control is absolutly deemed necessary in many cases. However, I believe that there are far more humane methods that are available, so Labour could not support those amendments. As I have already heard from Aitchle Hamilton, there is a failure to understand the fundamental differences between rabbit hunting and hair coursing. Those facts are confirmed by the evidence of Professor Stephen Harris, a well-known opponent of hunting, during his evidence to the hunting hearing conducted by the Westminster Government in September 2002. In respect of the use of dogs to control rabbits, he stated, that the process is very different from coursing hares. First, the quarry is very much smaller, and that means that it is easier for a dog to kill a rabbit quickly. Secondly, the distance over which the hunt occurs is much shorter. Rabbits and hares are spatially separated with hares remaining in the middle of open spaces and rabbits to the edge of fields. Hares try to escape by outrunning their prey, because they have no natural predators, so that chase may continue over long distances. Rabbits, in comparison, do not normally move more than 10 metres from cover, and their means of escape is a short dash to their warren, so the pursuit is extremely short. Although the aim of rabbitting with dogs is primarily press control, as opposed to hair hunting, which is solely sport, it probably makes an extremely small contribution to population control. The vast majority of rabbits are killed by ferritin, gassing and shooting, and it is unlikely that rabbitting is less humane than any of those forms of control. The evidence clearly shows that, in terms of welfare and necessary control of rabbits, that the Scottish Parliament was right to exclude rabbits from the Scope of the 2002 Act 2002. The assumption that shooting rabbits is better in welfare terms than the use of dogs is simply wrong is that flushing and dispatching rabbits with dogs is both effective and humane. The second argument in favour of including rabbits in the bill is to prevent rabbit control from being used as an excuse for illegal hair poaching, commonly known as hair coarsing. That is desirable, but it could be achieved by recognising that trespass was the primary ingredient of the fence, where activity occurs in land without its owners' permission by exempting rabbits, but only where land owners' permission has been explicitly obtained. I believe that the amendments that I have brought forward are lazy amendments, and we should look further at other alternatives than to include rabbits solely to prevent hair coarsing. The definition of wild mammal used in the bill has been discussed extensively during stage 1 and stage 2. When similar amendments to those were lodged at stage 2, I made very clear that I could not support any amendment that sought to exclude rabbits, mink or any other wild animal from the definition of wild mammal, and therefore from the protections that they are afforded under the bill. The majority of rain committee members were of the same view as me, and the amendments were defeated at stage 2 by 7 votes to 2. I haven't changed my opinion in the intervening period and will not be supporting either Rachel Hamilton or Edward Mountain's amendments today. I am happy just to say a very quick word with reference to both mink and rabbit as to why that is. On mink, removing them from the scope of the bill would allow them to be chased and killed by dogs. There is no rationale for that, and doing so would certainly have negative welfare implications. It is worth pointing out that minks can still be controlled under the bill for many of the reasons that Edward Mountain set out, including if they are regarded or required to be controlled as part of an invasive non-native species scheme. However, we did hear during stage 2 that they can be effectively managed by other means such as trapping. I would ask Parliament to note that mink is currently included in the definition of wild mammal under the 2002 act. That means that it is currently illegal to chase and kill them, and Edward Mountain's amendments would therefore represent a step backwards. I want to move forward so that we will not be supporting them. Equally on rabbits, the policy rationale for including them within the definition of wild mammal has been set out clearly in the process of the bill. It has been rehearsed by some members today. I have spoken at length about why they have been included. This is for two reasons, firstly, to close the loophole whereby persons would seek to engage in here coursing. We are claiming that they were hunting rabbits, and secondly, for animal welfare reasons. I am happy to. Thank you for the minister for taking intervention. During our evidence session, Detective Sergeant Telford told the committee that it is a difficult one with regard to rough shooting. That is where intent would come into it and it might be difficult to differentiate. That opportunity is always going to be there. If dogs are flushed in game legally but encountered a mammal and chase it, that risk is there. I do not know whether that is necessarily addressed by the bill. Further, when press from the possibility of reports of illegal hunting to the police in connection with shoots involving dog, he replied, we will not know until the new regime is introduced. Minister, is that a good way to introduce new laws? I was listening very carefully there, but I am struggling to attribute what Finlay Carson has quoted at me to the issue of rabbits and hare coursing. Rough shooting was a previous group, but I take it that all those things are connected. Since he mentions Detective Sergeant Telford, let me point to something that he said in the course of our discussion on rabbits, which is that Police Scotland welcomes the inclusion of rabbits because it would, to an extent, negate the excuse that the dogs were hunting rabbits rather than hares. He went on to say at stage 2, in relation to the enforcement of hare coursing offences, the addition of rabbits would aid police investigations. Rachael Hamilton then asked, is that based on evidence? DS Telford replied, yes, I would say that it is. For those reasons, because it is important for the welfare of rabbits sentient beings like hares and to seek to overcome the excuse for hare coursing, I cannot support the removal of those species from the definition of wild mammal. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I'll keep my comment short. I'm sorry that we're moving on without considering the real issues here, the issue being that we, I think, all accept that mink as a non-native invasive species is a real challenge to Scotland's flora and fauna, and, therefore, we, by this bill, are going to limit the control of that species, which I think is against Scotland's interest. It's certainly against the interest of some of the iconic species. If I may just point out that I know Ariane Burgess, Presiding Officer, mentioned earlier that foxes don't predate capocaly, or that wasn't the case from the RSPB, I would actually respectfully suggest that they do in the same way that mink to, and if Ms Burgess needs evidence of that, there was a period of two years where they didn't control foxes on Abernethy, that's the RSPB, and then they went back to controlling foxes because they do mink are the same problem as foxes, and they need to be controlled, and we shouldn't be limiting it. I understand also the Minister's reluctance to remove rabbits based on the fact that she thinks people are going to misidentify them. I say as a countryman, I've thought the only time that rabbits were misconstrued as hares, or hares misconstrued as rabbits, was when people were watching Bugs Bunny because clearly, yes I would, but if I may, clearly, if I can just finish this point, if I can clearly make the point, Bugs Bunny is, of course, not a bunny but a hare, and we all know that, so I'll take the intervention. Thanks, Edward Mountain, for bringing a weeb of humour to the debate, but we do not recognise that the bill isn't about people who are doing legitimate exercises, it's about people who are trying to break the law, and the people who are trying to break the law know the difference between a rabbit and a hare, but they're using that as a cover. Edward Mountain. That to me is an extremely weak argument on the fact that if you're changing the law, it's very difficult to give you an answer to the question if you're talking at the same time as I'm trying to do it. If you're going to change the law because the existing law about coursing is insufficient and the police don't have the resources or the knowledge to implement it, by disadvanting those people who are abiding by the law and controlling animals that are a problem in Scotland, then that is a weak excuse. I will say no more because it is obvious that people have made their minds up, but I think both of these species should not be within the... I'm afraid I'm closing. I think there is a little point from the barracking that's going on that I'm going to get anyone to listen to me. Can you confirm you're pressing the amendment? I do press the motion. Thank you. The question is that amendment 22 be agreed to, are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed. There'll be a vote and members should cast their votes now. I call co-cab student. On behalf of Stuart McMillan, I vote no. Thank you, Mr Stewart. I'll make sure that's recorded and the vote is now closed. And the result of the vote on amendment number 22 in the name of Edward Mountain is yes, 28, no, 91. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 23 in the name of Edward Mountain. Already debated with amendment 22, Edward Mountain, to move or not move? Moved. The question is that amendment 23 be agreed to, are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed. There'll be a vote and members should cast their votes now. And I call co-cab student. On behalf of Stuart McMillan, I vote no. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Stewart. I'll make sure that's recorded and the vote is now closed. And the result of the vote on amendment 23 in the name of Edward Mountain is yes, 28, no, 90. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 24 in the name of Rachel Hamilton. Already debated with amendment 22, Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move? Moved. That is moved. The question is that amendment 24 be agreed to, are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There'll be a division. Members should cast their votes now. I call co-cab student. Stuart McMillan's vote is no. Thank you, Mr Stewart. I'll make sure that's recorded and the vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment 24 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is yes, 27, no, 91. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 25 in the name of Ariane Burgess. Already debated with amendment 19, Ariane Burgess, to move or not move? Moved, Presiding Officer. The question is that amendment 25 be agreed to, are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There'll be a division and members should cast their votes now. I call co-cab student. Stuart McMillan's vote is no. Thank you, Mr Stewart. I'll make sure that's recorded and the vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment 25 in the name of Ariane Burgess is yes, 24, no, 94. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 26 in the name of Rachel Hamilton. Already debated with amendment 20, Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move? Moved. That's moved. The question is that amendment 26 be agreed to, are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed. There'll be a vote. Members should cast their votes now. I call co-cab student. Stuart McMillan's vote is no. Thank you, Mr Stewart. I'll make sure that's recorded. The vote is now closed. Point of order, Rachel Hamilton. Thank you. My app wasn't working. I'd voted yes. Thank you, Mr Hamilton. I'll make sure that that is recorded. And the result of the vote on amendment 26 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is yes, 28, no, 89. There were no abstentions. That amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 27 in the name of Rachel Hamilton. Already debated with amendment 20, Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move? Moved. That's moved. The question is that amendment 27 be agreed to, are we all agreed? No. Parliament's not agreed. There'll be a vote. Members should cast their votes now. I call co-cab student. Stuart McMillan, no. Thank you, Mr Stewart. I'll make sure that's recorded. The vote is now closed. And the result of the vote on amendment 27 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is yes, 28, no, 89. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 28 in the name of Arian Burgess. Already debated with amendment 19. Arian Burgess, to move or not move? Move, Presiding Officer. That is moved. The question is that amendment 28 be agreed to, are we all agreed? No. Parliament's not agreed. There'll be a vote. Members should cast their votes now. I call co-cab student. Stuart McMillan, no. Thank you, Mr Stewart. I'll make sure that's recorded. The vote is now closed. Point of order, Kenneth Gibson. Connect to the platform. I would have voted no. Thank you, Mr Gibson. I'll make sure that's recorded. Point of order, Faisal Chowdry. Am I abdidd and connect? I would have voted yes. Thank you, Mr Chowdry. I'll make sure that's recorded. And the result of the vote on amendment number 28 in the name of Arian Burgess is yes, 25, no, 92. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I'll call amendment 29 in the name of Rachel Hamilton. Already debated with amendment 20. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move? Move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 29 be agreed to, are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed. Parliament will have a division and members should cast their votes now. I call co-cab student. Stuart McMillan, no. Thank you, Mr Stewart. I'll make sure that's recorded and the vote is now closed. Am I abdidd and connect? I would have voted yes. Am I abdidd and connect? I would have voted yes. I'll make sure that's recorded. And the result of the vote on amendment number 29 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is yes, 28, no, 90. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I'll call amendment 30 in the name of Rachel Hamilton. Already debated with amendment 20. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move? Move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 30 be agreed to, are we all agreed? No. Parliament's not agreed. There'll be a division and members should cast their votes now. I'll make sure that's recorded and the result of the vote on amendment number 30 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is yes, 28, no, 90. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I'll call amendment 31 in the name of Ariane Burgess. Already debated with amendment 19. Ariane Burgess, to move or not move? Move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 31 be agreed to, are we all agreed? No. Parliament's not agreed. There'll be a division and members should cast their votes now. I call co-cab student. Stuart McMillan, no. Thank you, Mr Stewart. I'll make sure that's recorded and the vote is now closed. And the result of the vote on amendment number 31 in the name of Ariane Burgess is yes, 25, no, 94. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I'll call amendment 32 in the name of Rachel Hamilton. Already debated with amendment 20. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move? Move. That's moved. The question is that amendment 32 be agreed to, are we all agreed? No. Parliament's not agreed. There'll be a division and members should cast their votes now. I call co-cab student. Stuart McMillan, no. Thank you, Mr Stewart. I'll make sure that's recorded and the vote is now closed. And the result of the vote on amendment number 32 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is yes, 28, no, 91. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I'll call amendment 33 in the name of Rachel Hamilton. Already debated with amendment 20. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 33 be agreed to, are we all agreed? No. Parliament's not agreed. There'll be a division and members should cast their votes now. I'll call co-cab student. Stuart McMillan, no. Thank you, Mr Stewart. I'll make sure that's recorded and the vote is now closed. And the result of the vote on amendment number 33 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is yes, 28, no, 89. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. We move to group 4, exceptions, condition of killing the wild mammal. I'll call amendment 34 in the name of Colin Smith, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. I'll call Colin Smith to move amendment 34 and speak to the other amendments in the group. Mr Smith. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Amendment 34, which I move in my name and amendments 56, 61 and 70 in my name, would remove the use of a bird of prey as a permitted method of killing. This is neither a humane nor an efficient method of killing and there's no justification for it being a permitted method other than for the use of dogs to kill to be a permitted method. The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission in its response to the rain committee consideration of this bill said that it was, I quote, not aware of any evidence that killing by a bird of prey is more humane than killing by a dog. It would certainly doubt that it could be more humane than competent shooting. It's clear that the exception is not in line with the intentions of the bill, so I urge members to support my amendments to remove the practice of using a bird of prey as a method of killing wild animals. Amendments 1, 9, 10, 11 and 12 in my name would specify that dogs are not used to kill an injured wild mammal. This would ensure more humane methods are used to kill a wounded animal and avoid the scenario being used as a cover story if a dog is used to kill. It's crucial that we do not allow any loopholes to remain in the bill which may allow people to continue to use dogs to kill wild mammals. I brought amendments forward at stage 2, which sought to make the same changes to sections 3, 5, 6 and 7, and now section 6A, which has since been added into the bill. The minister offered to work with me on the wording of those amendments to ensure that the language is consistent with the rest of the bill. I am grateful for that work that has been done to achieve those amendments today. Colin Smyth for taking intervention. I have a quote here. The weight of the evidence, as noted in the Burns report at paragraph 6.48, is that in the vast majority of cases, the time to insensibly and death in these situations is no more than a few seconds. Those provisions were enacted in the knowledge of the terms of the Burns report. No evidence has been presented to indicate the abuse of those provisions by using dogs to dispatch seriously injured or orphaned wild animals. That quote comes from the Bonomy review, which has been used to inform this bill. Could Colin Smyth provide any evidence contrary to those findings? I am sure that Finlay Carson will probably use the same argument when it comes to hunting in general. He wants to see, frankly, dogs being used to kill animals. I just fundamentally disagree. I believe that there are far more alternatives that can be used that are far more humane, certainly in the case of shooting. I simply disagree with him on that particular point. As I said, Presiding Officer, I am grateful for the work that has been done on the amendments that I bring forward to this section of the bill, particularly in relation to the use of dogs not being allowed when it comes to injured animals. Amendments 35, 57, 62 and 71 in the name of Rachel Hamilton adds the caveat in the circumstances to the requirement to kill an injured wild mammal in a way that causes the minimal possible suffering. The existing condition already refers to reasonable steps being taken, so I believe that the condition has already been caveated. Therefore, urge members to support my amendments to ensure that only the most humane methods are used to kill wild mammals and that, under no circumstances, our dogs are used to do so. I call Rachel Hamilton to speak to amendments 35 and other amendments in the group. I will first speak to Colin Smyth's amendment. Of course, it is very important that we are all looking at this from the angle of animal welfare. I am just envisaging an animal that had been injured. Is Colin Smyth saying that a dog handler would just allow a fox to just run injured if it went through a line of guns? It is just a point that I am thinking of that perhaps Colin Smyth should consider. On that basis, we will not be supporting Colin Smyth's amendment, but perhaps he could answer that question in summing up. Amendments 35, 57, 62 and 71 in my name aim to address a potential problem in the existing wording, which leaves it unclear as to what amounts to taking reasonable steps to use the method that causes the minimum possible suffering. It needs to be made clear that causing the minimal possible suffering in the context in which the person is operating constitutes taking reasonable steps. The addition of, in the circumstances, makes clear that what is the method of minimum suffering will vary depending on circumstances, even if there could be a method that could objectively said to cause less suffering but was not possible in the circumstances. It also avoids the argument as to which method is in fact the one that causes the minimal possible suffering. The bill would otherwise impose unreasonable expectations upon those who are using dogs for the purposes of hunting wild mammals in the context of, for example, farmers protecting livestock or gamekeepers controlling populations of wild species. It is important that their work, which is vital to Scotland's food security and the preservation of Scotland's biodiversity, is set in its proper context throughout this bill, and that is what these amendments seek to do. I will be supporting Edward Mountain's amendment in this grouping, thank you. Thank you, Ms Hamilton. I call Edward Mountain to speak to amendment 36 and other amendments in the group. Mr Mountain. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Can I state again at the outset, surely what we all must want to do is to ensure the humane dispatch of animals, which is why this amendment, my amendment in this group amendment 36, seeks to do just that. When you get into thick cover, it is very difficult sometimes to track down a wounded animal. I know Mr Fairlie used this as an example during committee debates. I asked the Cabinet Secretary regarding animals that may have been injured. For example, a deer with a broken leg may well be easier to follow up, and it might be possible to follow that animal up in open ground, although you have to move very quickly, but in closed ground, using just two dogs where it can move round within, say, a bracken or some road to dendrons, would be virtually impossible, despite the fact that it is only moving on three legs. However, where a deer has got a broken jaw, and it does happen, sometimes shots go astray, sometimes they get damaged or injured, I should say, in road traffic accidents, it is virtually impossible for two dogs to keep pace in cover with a deer. That is why I would like to see more dogs being available to deal with injured animals. It came home to me at the weekend when I went over to Gerlock and I saw on the edge of the road a deer that had been struck, obviously a stag that had been stuck either by a lorry or a car. Its antler was lying on the road and it was standing on the edge of the road with a broken bottom leg. In this case, because it was snowy and open hill, it was very possible for the stalker, who I rang up and contacted, to come out and dispatch that animal. If that had been in a woodland setting, a stalker going out with two dogs could have spent days, literally days, looking for that animal. That is why I support the fact that, should an animal be injured, that people are given the opportunity to catch up with it and dispatch it as quickly as possible. That is why I would also support not only my amendment but Rachel Hamilton's amendment. I would just like to make a comment if I may, Presiding Officer, on Colin Smyth's amendment. To me, this is a misconception that falconry would result in the prolonged suffering of animals. I have never seen it in real life, but I know for a fact that golden eagles often hunt in the winter and sort out the younger calves from their mothers and harry them until they are driven over a cliff face and killed and then they eat the carrion down below. That is not what we are talking about. What we are talking about in this case with falconry is falcons, possibly not even domestic native species, being used to kill an animal, which is done in the most cases that I have seen extremely quickly and with little suffering. I cannot support Colin Smyth's amendment, but I would ask the Parliament to be very careful if you vote against my amendment to remember that, by doing so, you are possibly prolonging the suffering of an animal, which is not something that I would ever seek to do. I call Arrianne Burgess to make a brief intervention. I would like to speak in support of Colin Smyth's amendments in this group. Colin Smyth's amendments 34, 56, 61 and 70 seek to remove bird of prey from the permitted methods of killing a wild mammal throughout the bill. Several stakeholders told the Rural Affairs Committee about the animal welfare impact of killing with a bird of prey. The Government's own Scottish Animal Welfare Commission stated that, quote, the impact of the welfare of the hunted animal is likely to be similar whether killed by a dog or a bird of prey. Further, if a fox is the target species then there is also a risk to the bird of prey. That is why the SSPCA does not support falconry for population management and why they questioned why birds of prey are included when the purpose of wildlife control after all other options have been exhausted. It is why the rain report states that it is not clear to the committee why birds of prey are one of the two permitted methods of killing under the bill. I also support Colin Smyth's amendments 1, 9, 10, 11 and 12, which stipulate that if the wild mammal is injured it cannot be killed using a dog. Instead, a more humane method must be used. Conversely, I wish to oppose Rachel Hamilton's amendment 57, which seemed to weaken the requirements to minimise suffering when killing an injured mammal by adding in the circumstance. I will not take an intervention because I was making a brief comment. I begin by addressing Colin Smyth's amendments 34, 56, 61 and 70. Those amendments would make it unlawful for a person to use a bird of prey to kill a wild mammal, which had been searched for, stocked or flushed by dogs. As dogs play an important role in falconry, those amendments, if passed, would in effect ban certain types of falconry by the back door. I said in relation to Colin Smyth's amendments 60 and 64 that I appreciated some people would like to see falconry banned. However, it is currently a permitted activity in Scotland so long as it is done in accordance with relevant legislation. As we seek here to come together and to end illegal hunting, we must guard against our actions in pinning on otherwise lawful activity, and therefore I cannot support those amendments. However, moving to Mr Smyth's amendments 1, 9, 10, 11 and 12, those amendments elaborate on methods of dispatch that cause the minimum possible suffering. I listened carefully to Colin Smyth's reasons for his similarly proposed amendments at stage 2. I said at the time that, while they did not work as they were introduced, I would be happy to work with him to bring something back. I have been very clear throughout the progression of the bill that the chasing and killing of a wild mammal by a dog has no place in modern Scotland. That amendment makes that clear by stating that killing a wild mammal in a way that causes it the minimal possible suffering, as required by the bill, will never allow it to be killed by a dog or dogs. I think that that is a very important provision. I think that it goes to the heart of the bill and I am pleased to have worked with Colin Smyth on it. Moving to Rachel Hamilton's amendments 35, 57, 62 and 71, the bill provides the condition that if an attempt to kill the wild mammal results in it being injured but not killed, reasonable steps must be taken to kill it in a way that causes minimal possible suffering. Rachel Hamilton's amendments seek to caveat that requirement by adding the words in the circumstances. I have listened to what Rachel Hamilton said. However, I remain of the view that those amendments are not necessary. I fear that they could weaken the provision. As currently worded, the bill already implicitly provides that the minimal possible suffering may depend on the circumstances. A person can only ever act in the circumstances in which they find themselves. Yes, I am happy to. When it comes to Colin Smyth's amendment regarding killing with a dog, what she suggests should happen if a fox was shot and injured as it passed through a line of guns and took off open overground? Should the dog handler just stand and watch the fox disappear to potentially die and agonising death under cover when they have the means to deal with it humanely and quickly? Can I suggest that Colin Smyth and others are considering legislation to deal with a circumstance that may infrequently happen in relation to the issues of the legislation? It is falling in deaf ears when it comes to welfare issues that will happen. A question is whether welfare is at the heart of the decisions that have been taken through this amendment. The key point of Finlay Carson's intervention is an important one. I understand that there has to be provision for where an animal is injured or killed for it to be located and dispatched as quickly and as effectively and as humanely as possible. That is why at stage 2 I introduced amendments to allow the use of two dogs to search for an injured animal and to allow the use of two dogs to search for a dead animal. What will never be acceptable and what has not been legal for 20 years is to allow a dog to chase and to rip apart a wild mammal, and that should remain the case now. Can I just clarify if the minister is supporting Colin Smyth's amendment? This is the one that the minister worked with Colin Smyth on amendment 12. Does the minister believe that the amendment where she listened to individuals who talked about the injured animal would be covered under that amendment rather than this, which contradicts the animal welfare at that point? I am sorry, I cannot follow the point that Rachel Hamilton was making there. I am more than happy to take another intervention if she wants to put it to me again. It is in reference to Finlay Carson's intervention with regard to an injured animal not being allowed to be dispatched by a dog at the point that it was injured. Thank you and I appreciate Rachel Hamilton clarifying that point, but it brings me back to my point before that, thanks to amendments brought forward at stage 2, if the bill is passed, there will be provision for dogs to search for an injured animal and to search for a dead animal, so that it can then be dispatched to the most humane and effective way possible, but that will, if we passed the amendment that Colin Smyth and I worked on together, never constitute killing by a dog. If I can move on to amendment 36 in the name of Edward Mountain, I am afraid that I cannot support this one either. It appears to seek to allow a pack of dogs to kill a wild mammal without any caveats at all. Under the amendment, a person needs only an attempt to kill a wild mammal before they can set a pack of dogs on it. I have been very clear that banning the chasing and killing of a wild mammal with packs of dogs is the fundamental premise of the bill. I am happy to give way. I am grateful that it gave way. That is definitely not my intention. I think that the amendment makes it clear that the intention is to allow more than two dogs to hunt for an injured animal. It is not a question of hunting and killing for it. It is hunting it and flushing it so that it can be dispatched humanely. Would that not be in the way that all people in the countryside believe that animals should be dispatched? Was she not reconsidered this? If I had the long time to do it, you would go and get a licence and you might be allowed more dogs. That is urgent, where an animal is suffering and you want to dispatch it. I think that the minister may have misunderstood what I have with the amendment. I clarify to Edward Mountain on this and to the other instances where he suggests that I have misunderstood him. I have not. I am just exploring the multifaceted issues that he raises. I understand the situation that he presented is one where you may find an injured animal. What I am telling him is that the provisions brought forward at stage 2 to use dogs to search for that animal, to use dogs to search for a dead animal, I believe, are sufficient to rise to the circumstances that he describes. The other side of that, of course, is that we have to guard against any provision that we introduce being used as a loophole, as we know was the case in the 2002 act in my fear, with the amendment that he puts forward, which would allow a pack of dogs to search for an injured animal, would be used as a loophole in the aftermath of the bill, and therefore, for that and other reasons, I cannot support it. I advise members that they will note that we have passed the agreed time limit for the debate on this group to finish. I exercise, in fact, my power under rule 9.8.4A brackets C, closed brackets, to allow debate in this group to continue beyond the limit in order to avoid the debate being unreasonably curtailed. I call on Collins Smith to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 34. I welcome the Government's support for my amendments to stop the use of dogs being used to kill an injured wild mammal. I think that the minister has very much addressed the scenarios that were raised by Finlay Carson and Rachel Hamilton. I think that there is also a real genuine concern that allowing dogs to be used to kill animals in any circumstances could be used as a cover for the use of dogs being dispatched to kill animals in all circumstances. I think that that would very much undermine a key aim of this bill. However, I am disappointed that there was no more support for it. I will take an intervention on that. I accept that Collins Smith is opposed to certain aspects of rural country sports. However, I think that Collins Smith needs to look at the fact that this could undermine the highest standards of animal welfare. Dispatching a wild predator efficiently and effectively is really important in the toolbox for particularly farmers. I have to say to Rachel Hamilton that I am not opposed to sport. I am opposed to intolerable animal cruelty. I do think that one of the concerns—this Parliament probably had this debate over 20 years ago, on whether it was acceptable to use dogs to tear mammals apart. We thought that that issue was settled. However, it is not settled in the eyes of Rachel Hamilton. As I said, I am disappointed that there was no more support for my further amendments to remove the bird of prey as a permitted method of killing. As I said earlier during the debate on group 2, the Government's argument that preventing wild mammals being killed by a bird of prey seems to centre around its already permitted activity. However, the Parliament has the power to change that. I think that that is quite a weak argument. I think that that is a missed opportunity to ensure that the bill is as strong on animal welfare as it could be. The minister argued that it was not included in the original scope of the bill. As I said in the opening comments, if it is the right thing to do, the Government has formed in previous legislation when it suits them to introduce additional amendments. Therefore, I am happy to press amendment 34 in my name. The question is that amendment 34 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. A member should cast their vote now. I call co-cav's chute. No. The vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment 34 in the name of Colin Smyth is, yes, 25, no, 92. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 1 in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 34. Colin Smyth, to move or not move? The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. Therefore, there will be a division. A member should cast their vote now. I call co-cav's chute. Yes. The vote is now closed. Thank you. The result of the vote on amendment number 1 in the name of Colin Smyth is, yes, 88, no, 27. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 35 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 34. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move? Moved. The question is that amendment 35 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. A member should cast their vote now. I call co-cav's chute. No. Thank you. The vote is now closed. Thank you. The result of the vote on amendment number 35 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is, yes, 29, no, 89. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 36 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 34. Edward Mountain, to move or not move? Thank you. The question is that amendment 36 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. A member should cast their vote now. I call co-cav's chute. No. Thank you. The vote is now closed. Thank you. The result of the vote on amendment number 36 in the name of Edward Mountain is, yes, 28, no, 90. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. We will now move on to group 5, licenses for use of more than two dogs. I call amendment 37 in the name of Arian Burgess, a group with amendments as shown in the groupings, and I would point out that if amendment 41 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 42 or 43, and if amendment 75 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 76 or 77 as a result of pre-emptions. I call on Arian Burgess to move amendment 37 and to speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you. My amendments in this grouping seek to make the licensing scheme more stringent, accountable and transparent, so it can't be used as a loophole for the very forms of hunting that this bill seeks to ban. I'm going to stop for a moment because I'm finding it distracting while people are leaving the room. Can I ask members who are leaving the chamber to please do so quietly and quickly, Ms Burgess? Amendment 37 and 72 are intended to determine if more detail will be required as part of the licence application process on what the dogs will be used for. Sections 4 and 8 state that the licensing authority may require specific information as part of an application, but it notes only that this may include the number of dogs and the number of guns that the applicant would like to use. I believe that it's just as important for the licensing authority to be told exactly what the applicant intends to do with those dogs and guns. For example, if the applicant wants to hunt under the exception of preventing the spread of disease, then they should explain which species will be targeted, how many animals and how many will be killed. My amendments 47 and 81 are also about detail. They specify a few reporting requirements, including the number of wild mammals hunted or killed, the specific location where any kills occurred and, crucially, whether that achieved the purpose for which the licence was granted. It may be that the licensing authority understood to be NatureScot would require such detail as they do, for example, on the beaver licence return forms. However, I'd like reassurance that this will definitely be the case. Amendment 45 and 79 would ensure that licences only allow the minimum number of dogs that NatureScot believes would be effective. The bill currently says that they may only permit the minimum number of dogs, but that sounds like they could also choose to permit more. That amendment removes that ambiguity. I'm sure that NatureScot will be sensible about the number of dogs that should be allowed for licence hunting, but that stipulation would help to remind them to keep thinking every time they issue a licence what is the maximum number of dogs that should be allowed in that particular case. Amendment 93 on a register of licences was inspired by Christine Grahams. After discussing the details with both Christine Grahams and the Minister, I felt that it was important to add to Ms Grahams' idea. My amendment replicates her point that NatureScot must keep a register of licences but applies this to section 8 as well as section 4, meaning that it applies to all licences. Instead of requiring the entire register to be published, it could pose data protection concerns. My amendment specifies certain data that must be made publicly available, such as the number of dogs permitted and the location where the hunting is allowed. Finally, my amendment requires that this data is made available before the start date of the licence. This way, if enforcement officers or members of the public witness somebody using multiple dogs for hunting, they can consult the public register to check that the activity is licensed. That would improve transparency, accountability and enforcement. I also support Christine Grahams' amendment, but I encourage members to vote for mine as well for the reasons outlined. My amendments 38 and 73 require licence applications to be accompanied by an ethical wildlife management plan that must be accepted by—I have a lot to get through, and I am aware that I have heard about—time. My amendments 38 and 73 require licence applications to be accompanied by an ethical wildlife management plan that must be accepted by NatureScot before a licence is granted. Amendments 51 and 84 define the ethical wildlife management plan and explain what it must cover. In brief, it must set out how the applicant will achieve a long-term solution that causes the least harm to the fewest number of animals. That draws on the seven international principles for ethical wildlife control, which have been debated in this chamber, thanks to Colin Smyth and considered extensively by the Reign Committee. In fact, the Government's own Scottish Animal Welfare Commission stated that it would be valuable to apply the international consensus principles for ethical wildlife control to the bill. Amendments 39 and 74 would give NatureScot the power to reject the licence application on the basis of an unsatisfactory ethical wildlife management plan or require it to be revised. My remaining amendments in this grouping also aim to ensure that any licence hunting with dogs is as ethical as possible, but they take a more open approach. Amendments 50, 52, 83 and 85 broadly define ethical wildlife management, drawing on NatureScot's definition of wildlife management and evidence received by the Rural Affairs Committee about the importance of an evidence-based approach that prioritises animal welfare. Amendments 44 and 78 simply state that NatureScot must be satisfied that the hunting will comply with the best practice in ethical wildlife management. That avoids locking in any specific ethical principles or requirements at this time. Amendment 53 and 86 give Scottish ministers powers to provide further information on any of the definitions in subsection 6, meaning that they could identify, develop or update a set of principles or criteria for best practice, which could draw on the outcome of the forthcoming species licensing review. Amendment 40 is a consequential formatting change. Coming on to other amendments in this group, I will support Colin Smyth's amendments 46, 49, 80 and 82 on the same topic of ethical wildlife management. Amendments 46 and 80 add adhering to a set of standards based on ethical wildlife management to the list of licence compliance conditions that NatureScot may set. Those amendments do not specify a particular set of standards, while amendment 49 and 82 define ethical principles for the context of the bill. My amendments on the ethical wildlife management plans are based on the seven international ethical principles. I also support Christine Grahame's amendments 2 and 3 to remove the option of granting a licence to a whole category of persons to help ensure that licensing remains the exception to an exception. I do not support any of Rachael Hamilton's amendments in this group as they seek to loosen up the licensing scheme rather than strengthen it and they open up new exceptions for more hunting with dogs. I move amendment 37 and all other amendments in this group. I urge members to support them. I also ask that members support Christine Grahame's and Colin Smyth's amendments but to vote against Rachael Hamilton's amendments in this group. I call Christine Grahame to speak to amendment 2 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I intend only to speak to my amendments in the group in the interests of time. Amendments 2 and 3 together both seek to delete from section 4, 4A and 4, 5A the phrase, quote, category of persons. My rationale for the says and wars in the minister knows I raised this at stage 2 as a probing amendment that was unclear as to the legal status of quotes category of persons, especially in relation to enforcement or breach of a licence, to charge, for example, if a licence holder breaches the terms. I further note that section 4 subsection 1, quote, a person may apply for a licence permitting the use of more than two dogs, etc. A person, no addition of category of persons now, that seems to me to be at the very least a technical inconsistency. As 4, 4A refers to grantable licence to a person or category, and similarly, section 4, 5A refers again to a person or category, as I say, this seems inconsistent with section 4 brackets 1. I look forward to the minister's explanation if I have misunderstood the position. I turn now to amendment 4, which basically seeks for the register of licences to be public, rather bit, so this is the main bit. Again, I raised this at stage 2 as a probing amendment. The minister's response, and I'm going to quote it, quotes, I'm sympathetic to that. Transparency in how licences operate is always desirable. NatureScot already successfully shares a lot of information on wildlife management licences, not least, as has been said recently, in detailed reporting on the operation of licences to manage beavers so that there is a precedent. There are also plans to publish data on all of NatureScot's licences, but we need to work carefully through the general data protection regulation legislation in order to do that in a way that is legally watertight and does not undermine the GDPR. That being the case, having listened to the exchanges, I will continue to consider Christine Grahame's point. I assure her today that I'll commit to going as far as possible within the remit of GDPR to publish what it is that she's asking for. I haven't seen anything as an amendment from the Government. Again, I ask for an explanation from the Minister, because my concerns are this, if it's not a public register, and I know that in exceptional circumstances, if a licence is granted, it goes to the land. However, how does an observer, as someone who takes a particular interest in this, know if there's been a breach of the terms of that licence if they don't know what land it exists over and who is responsible for the exercise of that licence? Amendments 41 and 75 in my name aim to reflect oral evidence in the rain committee, stating that effectiveness is to be understood as relating to whether the alternatives were practical and possible. There needs to be clarity on the face of the bill that this is the case. There may be alternatives that could be effective but are not necessarily practical, affordable, or indeed in the best interests of the welfare of the animals involved. Those amendments would also help Nature Scott to avoid facing legal challenges to licences issued on the basis that they have failed to meet what amounts to a test where they must be satisfied that there is no alternative which would be effective. What really matters is whether the use of more than two dogs is necessary and will make a significant contribution to the purpose for which a licence is granted. The proposed wording of amendments 41 and 75 would also recognise, as the current wording does not, that the use of dogs to flush the guns under licence does not mean that other methods of fox control will not carry on alongside licence control using dogs. Control is normally a combination of methods that complement one another and may be used concurrently. There is a danger of thinking that it is an either or scenario, whereas the reality is that successful creditor control involves a variety of methods. Which methods are used and when and where and how and any combination of methods at any given time will depend on terrain and other considerations, which are best decided by those conducting the control and wildlife management on the ground. Amendments 42 and 76 in this group would replicate the wording in the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act as amended and it applies in Scotland in relation to other wildlife licensing. As such, the relevant authority can issue a general licence for control of birds being satisfied. There is no other satisfactory solution but the person relying on that licence must also be clear the action taken is necessary and this can be done in conjunction with other methods being deployed. The evidence is clear that fox control is necessary, as accepted by the Scottish Government and Lord Bonomy, and that packs of dogs are key to that, even if in conjunction with other methods deployed concurrently. Amendment 43 and 47 seek to recognise that creditor control involves the use of a number of different methods that may be used concurrently and with different combinations at different times of the year and over different terrains, even on a single land holding. The need for use of a combination of methods in controlling foxes is no different from the licensing that applies for the control of, for example, birds to prevent damage. Amendment 48 aims to ensure that the bill recognises that fox control is a year-round activity. It is not simply undertaken when damage has occurred but to prevent damage from occurring. Farmers and land managers should only need to apply for a licence annually. They can then deploy their licence days as needed both in preventing damage and when needing to respond to the damage caused. Amendment 87, which follows on from and would ensure for the avoidance of doubt the control of eradication of invasive species and other species that are considered a pest to either humans, livestock or plants and animals as has been described in the bill, but would not reach the terms of a licence issued under section 4 or 8 of the bill. I have already outlined the need to ensure that this bill does not prevent individuals from contributing to the control of pest species or invasive non-native species for the sake of Scotland's food security and biodiversity. This amendment would add to the provisions within this bill to ensure that that does not happen. Similarly, amendment 90 would allow an individual to apply for a licence permitting the use of more than two dogs if they can demonstrate that control of the pest species would benefit the protection and restoration of ground nesting birds. It is an arbitrary distinction between those seeking to protect livestock and those seeking to achieve environmental benefit as part of the scheme, which seems fairly discriminatory to rural stakeholders. Amendment 88, in my name, seeks to ensure that the bill upholds the rights of individuals to the peaceful enjoyment of their property. That right was enshrined in the Council of Europe since 1950. I have no doubt that the Minister with legal background will be familiar with the case of Trey Tractora Acti Berlag versus Sweden, or at least the principle from it that a licence for the use of the private property can constitute property itself. The principle was first legally established in the case of colonial sugar refining versus Melbourne Harbour Trust in 1927, in which it was found that rights cannot be deprived unless that intention is made in clear and unambiguous terms on the face of the bill. If the Minister is unable to support my amendment 88, it would be very helpful if she could provide her assurances on record that this means that exercising one's rights under article 1 will not be classed as a breach of condition, nor see any interference with the rights in possessing a licence, which, as I just mentioned, is also a property protected under article 1. I would also ask that the Minister acknowledge that sometimes the circumstances of protecting livestock from harm will mean that there won't be a number of guns set up in prepared locations, while it is not always practical to meet all the other conditions set out in this section of the bill. There will be times when farmers will need to take action, which protects their possessions, their livestock, their livelihoods, and will reduce suffering to other animals. In such cases, there would be no adverse effects in applying for a future licence, nor would they see a licence they may hold removed. Amendments 89 and 94 follow a similar vein to amendment 90, which I have already discussed. Those amendments outline further circumstances under which the use of more than two dogs would provide a practical solution to control pest species. Those include pest control on rough and hilly ground, areas of dense cover, weather-related considerations, the management of wild boar and feral pigs, as seen in Aberdeenshire recently. Activities in heavily populated area where guns cannot be used for various reasons, while mammals involving vehicle collisions and animal welfare considerations, such as protecting dogs from exhaustion and ensuring pest species, are humanely dispatched by trained marksmen. It is important that those considerations, which we took evidence on in the rain committee, are covered in this bill, on the face of the bill. This amendment is worded in such a way that ministers can add to the circumstances under which a licence may be granted and allows the Parliament to make a final decision on whether provisions may be added to it. Amendment 91 ensures that licences are granted or rejected by the relevant authority in a timious manner by placing a duty on that authority to respond to an application within 30 days. The 30-day figure is based on the usual time it takes to get a wildlife licence across the United Kingdom. Amendment 92 makes provision for emergency licence applications in order to effectively achieve a purpose under section 3-2 or 7-2. Given pest control may sometimes need to be undertaken at very short notice, reacting to scenarios such as livestock being attacked by foxes, there is a need to ensure that emergency measures can be taken when required in a proactive way when the use of more than two dogs would be an appropriate means of addressing such a scenario. I will not be supporting all the other amendments in the group. The bill, as it stands, would allow for a continuation of the use of packs of dogs in hunting under a licence. It therefore fails to fully close the loopholes that exist in the current legislation. The bill should not be repeating the mistakes that were made in the protection of wild mammals bill in 2002. It must have animal welfare at its heart and end the cruel activity of hunting with packs of dogs for good. It is therefore disappointing that previous attempts to remove section 4 have been unsuccessful. I and others have tabled amendments at stage 3 to make sure that any licence system is as robust as it possibly can be. Amendments 46, 49, 80 and 82, in my name, would allow NatureScot to require licence applicants to meet standards in the application process drawn up in line with an ethical framework such as the international intervention. Is the member not satisfied with the fact that, with a minimum number of guns at the end of a drive, that the fox is not going to escape and therefore allow a chase to ensue? I am not entirely clear that that would address the concern that people have that if you use a pack of dogs, the risk of one or more of those dogs chasing the fox is still there. That is the whole purpose of the bill to try to minimise that risk by reducing the number of dogs to two. The point is that when hounds are driving a fox out of cover, generally the fox will never see the hounds until the very last moment of the chase, so if you are driving them out to standing guns, the fox will be shot before the hounds ever get anywhere near them. That is the purpose of the amendment that I put at stage 2 in order to take away that ability for hounds to be chasing foxes to kill them. I still do not think that that addresses the point. The actual purpose of the bill is to reduce the number of dogs to two to minimise the risk of dogs chasing and ultimately killing the fox. That is the circumstances that the Government is in favour of achieving. My argument is that that should be used in all circumstances so that the number of dogs should be reduced to two, which is the main aim of the bill. The Government has a disagreement and they think that PACs should continue to be allowed, but I do not see what that point is relevant that Mr Fairlie makes. As I said, amendment 46, 49 and 1882 in my name would allow NatureScot to require licence applicants to meet standards in the application process drawn up in line with the ethical framework that I mentioned earlier. The international consensus principle is ethical wildlife control, which is an existing internationally recognised example of such standards. Amendments 49 and 1882 would ensure that specific ethical principles are included in the face of the bill and shining them in law, namely to prioritise prevention and mitigation measures wherever possible to demonstrate that serious damage is being caused to people, ecosystems or other animals to set measurable adaptive outcome-based objectives that will reduce the damage to be based on the specifics of the situation rather than wholesale application to target species, use methods that predictably minimise animal welfare harms and the number of animals harmed, integrate all measures into plans for systematic long-term management and base decisions on the specifics of the situation rather than wholesale application to target species. It stays to the minister, argued that we should wait for the review by NatureScot of licence wildlife management, but during stage 1 NatureScot told the committee when given evidence that its approach is, I quote, fairly well aligned with those ethical principles. It's also been argued that amendments in support of an ethical approach when considering the principles behind the criteria for an application for a licence somehow go against the shared approach to wildlife management. First of all, there's a number of stakeholders who are part of the shared approach that actually oppose this bill altogether, a bill that makes far more widespread changes to wildlife management than my amendments on the licensing scheme, but the Government and others don't mention that threat to the shared approach when arguing in support of the bill, and rightly so because the shared approach is ultimately about working together and how best to do so within what legal framework this Parliament sets, and clearly there would be a shared approach when it came to the final detail of any licensing application process. The minister previously has also said several times as the bills progressed that she hasn't rolled out an ethical approach in the future, but this is the time to make up her mind. This bill has been delayed by several years already, and there has been ample opportunity to consider this matter. As well as my amendments, I fully support all of Arianna Burgess' amendments in this group, which also require anyone granted a licence must adhere to the principles of ethical wildlife management. Amendments 47 and 81 to specify further details that NatureScot may require licent holders to report on, including the number of wild mammals killed and whether this achieved purpose for which a licence was granted will help provide transparency and ensure that licences remain an exception to an exception. Amendments 41 to 43 and 75 to 77 in the name of Rachel Harman would all in slightly different ways lower the criteria for permitting the use of more than two dogs, and therefore would weaken what I think is already a weak enough bill further. If we are to have a licence in at all, it's important that it's an exception to an exception, only when no other method is available, and therefore we strongly oppose those amendments. Amendment 91 would impose a time limit in which NatureScot can respond to a licence application. Amendment 92 would create a new emergency licence in which NatureScot would be required to grant or refuse within 24 hours of receiving the application. Those amendments would restrict, in my view, the agency's ability to carry out a comprehensive inquiry and assessment, and, for this reason, we do not support them. Therefore, I urge members to support my amendments and those from Ariana Burgess to include the ethical principles for wildlife management on the face of this bill to ensure that the licensing scheme is as robust as possible and to also support the amendments in Christine Grahame's name on the issue of keeping a register. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This is a lengthy group, but I want to duly give the Government's response to members' amendments. I'll try to be quick, but please do bear with me. I'll begin with amendments 37 and 72 in the name of Ariana Burgess, which seek to add to the bill further examples of information that may be required by the licensing authority in an application under sections 4 and 8. The bill includes some of what will be required and states that any application for a licence must include any information that NatureScot requires. That means that the licensing authority already has very wide discretion over the information that it will routinely request when developing the detail of the regime. I fear that those amendments risk becoming too prescriptive and there are practical difficulties with them. For example, the bill already provides that the application must specify the species of wild animal to which it relates. Ms Burgess' amendment would add provision in respect of the number of wild mammals to which the application relates. I think that that would be practically difficult to anticipate and I'm very conscious of my own commitments that, although an exception to an exception and to be construed narrowly, I do want the licensing scheme to be workable where essential, so therefore I cannot support those amendments. On Ms Burgess' amendments that will require the applicant to prepare and submit an ethical wildlife management plan, amendments 44 and 78 require that, before granting a licence, the authority must be satisfied that the use of the licence will comply with best practice in ethical wildlife management. I'd say that under the bill a licence will only be granted when the licensing tests have been met. Those tests include ensuring that there's a valid reason for the species to be controlled and, crucially, what we must not lose sight of, that there are no other solutions that would be effective in achieving the purpose. That is a rightly high bar, Presiding Officer. While I am sympathetic to the intentions behind those amendments, I cannot support them. The requirement to be subject to an ethical wildlife management plan doesn't form part of any of the other licensing schemes operated by NatureScot, nor has it formed part of the evidence taken to now, so that even if we did agree that it was appropriate, I don't think that adding ad hoc would be an appropriate way to go ahead. However, Arrianne Burgess will be aware that, under the Bute House agreement, the Scottish Government will shortly commence a review of licensed wildlife management across the piece. I hope that she will appreciate that I shouldn't agree to impose changes on a particular category of licence before we have completed that review. There are also a number of technical issues with the amendment, but I won't necessarily go into the detail on them in the interests of time. However, I would like to move to Arrianne Burgess's amendments 47 and 79, which changed the test to must only. It's about tweaking the wording of the obligation on the licensing authority, but I can't support those because they're not necessary. By stating that the licence may only permit the number of dogs, not that it may permit them, the effect is already that the licensing authority must always restrict the number of dogs to the minimum number, which would be effective. My point is that the provisions in the bill as drafted already rise to what I think Ms Burgess is seeking, and therefore I'd ask her not to press those ones. Moving to 47 and 81, they set out further examples of reporting requirements that could be included under sections 4 and 8. The bill already provides that a licence is subject to compliance with certain conditions, one of which is reporting requirements in relation to activities carried out under licence. The reporting requirements placed on licence holders are best decided, I believe, by NatureScot in collaboration with stakeholders as the licensing scheme and a company in guidance is developed. It's really not a standard practice to include this kind of information on the face of a bill, and that was the case in the Wildlife and Countryside Act. The bill is drafted to include a framework for licences so that guidance could be set out in consultation with stakeholders, and that work is very much under way, including with countryside management and animal welfare stakeholders, and for those reasons I can't support those amendments. Moving to Ariane Burgess' amendments regarding public register, I am sympathetic to the intentions here. I agree that transparency is very important, not just in the way that the licence will operate, but for all of the licences operated by NatureScot. Again, that's why under the Bute House agreement we have committed, and I quote, to review the wider species licensing systems and the introduction of a public register of licences to improve transparency, bearing in mind data protection and safety of licence holders. As I said, when that was discussed at stage 2, I think that it is better to proceed on the already agreed plans in the Bute House agreement and to publish information in a co-ordinated way so that I can fully consider the GDPR implications, which I am sure will come to bear there. I can't support that amendment. I would like to move to those amendments in the name of my colleague Christine Grahame and, firstly, to amendments 2 and 3, which relate to a category of persons. I understand Ms Grahame's desire to tighten the granting of licences. I agree that they should be drawn and construed narrowly, but equally that they should be workable and available where essential. Sections 4, 4A and 8, 4A specify that applications for a licence can be granted to a person or a category of persons. Ms Grahame's amendment would seek to remove a category of persons. The law is clear that the word person includes corporate entities, companies and partnerships. Those amendments would still allow licences to be granted to informal bodies as well as to individuals and other corporate entities such as companies and partnerships. However, they would not allow a licence to be granted to a broader category of persons, which might include, for example, farmers within a devined geographical area. Christine Grahame, I just seek clarity on why the application is made by a person and not in conformity with the rest of that, which is our category of persons. In terms of an applicant, let's say that there are three land owners, A, B and C. It is over the three areas of the land, because I know that it goes over the area of land. A applies for the licence. Do they then advise that they are doing it on behalf of themselves and B and C? I just want to know how that works when it does seem to me to be consistent across the sections. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank Christine Grahame for her intervention. I was pleased, I was good to come on to that point and I'm glad that she's brought it up. I'm equally glad to assure her that it isn't a technical oversight. The reference to person and to persons just reflects the fact that a licence would be granted to a person or groups of persons, but NatureScot would always require a named individual to be responsible for the licence. For example, in the situation that she narrates, three farmers could apply for a licence for three different farms, but it would still require one individual to be responsible for that licence. That might be for reasons of being a point of contact, for reporting, perhaps as a point of contact for Police Scotland. I know that in previous discussions at stage 2, Christine Grahame has sought some reassurance as regards to liability and how that plays out with regards to the applicant and to who's named on it. I would point out that it will always be the person committing the crime on the ground, first and foremost, who are liable. However, there are additional provisions in the act by which a landowner or an applicant, if not the person carrying out the work on the ground, can be liable for knowingly causing or permitting illegal activity to take place on their land. On top of that, NatureScot has wide discretion under the bill to decide not to issue a licence, for example, if they have any concerns about previous breaches to licence conditions or suspicion of illegal activity. I hope that that gives Christine Grahame some comfort. Moving to her amendment 4, it is similar to Arianne Burgess's. That would require NatureScot to make available a public register. Ms Grahame narrated some of what I said at stage 2, which remains the case. I absolutely understand the desire for openness and transparency, but I do think that the right approach is to review that for wildlife licensing right across the piece and not take decisions on an ad hoc basis. Very, very brief. If not now, but certainly I hope in the debate, can the minister give us some indication of when this review will take place and when we'll have a report on it? Briefly, minister, please. I'm pleased, too. The commitment is there in black and white in the Bute House agreement. It is myself and the same officials that are part of the bill team who will be undertaking that work. We hope to commence it very shortly, but I'm sure that Ms Grahame will understand that we would like to get this bill passed first. Moving to Rachel Hamilton's amendments, Presiding Officer, 41 to 3 and 50, 75 to 77. Those amendments change the test. Yes, happy to hear. I thank the minister for taking an intervention. I understand Ms Hamilton's reasons for lodging amendment 91. I've raised concerns about NatureScot's capacity to take on new responsibilities. Can I ask the minister if she's confident that NatureScot has both the relevant expertise and resource level to respond to licenced applications within a realistic timeframe? We all want the licensing scheme to be workable. Thank you. Yes, I do. It's an important question. It's something that we obviously have to bear in mind as we create new responsibilities on NatureScot as a licensing authority, but I have worked very closely with them as have officials throughout the development of this bill. They are confident that they can manage the additional workload, and equally they have a long history of responding to licences on a routine basis, but equally being able to expedite licences where there is a need for urgency. I think that that would continue in the course of this work. I was speaking, however, Presiding Officer, to Rachel Hamilton's amendments. I can't support 41 to 43 or 75 to 77 because they would change the test for obtaining a licence in a way that I think makes less clear what is required, both for the applicant and for the licensing authority. It appears to introduce a separate standalone test for the applicant to meet that it's necessary without specifying what that might mean in practice, so I cannot support vague provisions in the legislation. Rachel Hamilton's amendment 48, increasing the period of time in which a licence under section 4 can be used from 14 days within a six-month period to 14 days over 12 months. I said in December at stage 2 as part of my amendment that I believe that 14 days over six months was an appropriate period of time, allowing flexibility without any more hunting days, and that hasn't changed from stage 2, so I can't support those amendments. Moving as swiftly as possible on, Presiding Officer, to 87 and 88, also in the name of Rachel Hamilton, I have to admit that I have struggled somewhat to understand the logic behind amendments 87 and 88. To me, and this hasn't really changed from anything that I've observed this afternoon, they appear to try and write into the bill circumstances where a person would not be breaching licence conditions even though they have demonstrably breached those conditions. I think they undermine the provisions and the safeguards included in the licensing scheme and would create numerous loopholes. Amendment 87 would mean that a person could apply for a licence, for example for the use of more than two dogs for invasive non-native species. The bill already provides that NatureScot could include any condition that they consider appropriate in the licence and that that should be complied with. Amendment 88 is the one that touches on article 1, protocol 1, without going into the detail of that too greatly. NatureScot is a public body already obliged to comply with the terms of the ECHR, including the qualified right of article 1, protocol 1. Amendment 89, in Rachel Hamilton's name, the additional licence under certain circumstances. Provision equally, I can't support this. It creates new provision allowing a person to apply for a licence for the use of more than two dogs in certain circumstances without any of the safeguards that we've very deliberately and carefully built into the bill. The provision also refers to pest species, which is not a term, Presiding Officer, that I will readily, if at all, use. Amendment 90, also in Rachel Hamilton's name, similar to amendment 89, provides that a person may apply for a licence under this new section, in this case to permit the use of more than two dogs again to deal with pest species. Again, Presiding Officer, the chamber will note that that's not a term that the Government will readily use or accept. Amendment 91, in Rachel Hamilton's name, setting out how NatureScot must grant, refuse or respond to an applicant within 30 days. That is the point that I had in exchange with Beatrice Wishart on. A turnaround of 30 days is already standard practice for NatureScot and, in some cases, they already do that far quicker. Of course, the processing times of licences will vary depending on the type of licence, the quality of the application and the supporting documents submitted. As I said to Beatrice Wishart, I have confidence that NatureScot can continue to turn licences around in that period and that they have sufficient provision to deal with the need to expedite cases where that might arise. Of course, that point addresses amendment 92, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, which I also cannot support. Moving to Rachel Hamilton's final amendment in this group 94, that would require the Scottish Government to make regulations for the licensing of more than two dogs for all of the 10-plus circumstances that are set out in the amendment. I believe that that is entirely unnecessary. Most, if not all, of the circumstances that are listed in the amendment are either already covered by other areas of the bill or do not necessitate the use of more than two dogs. For example, in relation to licences for the use of more than two dogs in rough hilly terrain, I have been clear all along that one of the main reasons for introducing the licence has been about responding to Lord Bonamy's comments on terrain. We have discussed the matter of recovery of a wild mammal injured in a vehicle collision, as we have on ensuring that foxes are humanely dispatched. I believe that the licensing scheme strikes a balance, but it is an exception to an exception and must be construed narrowly. That brings me to the final provision in this group, amendments 46, 49, 80 and 82, in the name of Colin Smyth, which proposes applications for a licence to use more than two dogs be subject to adherence to a set of standards based on ethical principles for humane wildlife management. As I stated in response to Ariane Burgess at her amendment for a wildlife management plan, I am sympathetic to the intention here, but I cannot support the amendments. As discussed at stage 2, NatureScot has developed that shared approach to wildlife management. It is a valuable framework that has been developed in conjunction with a wide variety of stakeholders from conservation animal welfare, land management and includes groups like the RSPB, Scottish Lands and Estates, the National Farmers Union and the Cairngorms and Loch Lomond National Park. I think that the consensus demonstrated by the shared approach is not to be disregarded likely and I think that it is time that we give that a chance to operate before considering alternative frameworks. For that reason, I cannot support that amendment. Thank you. Before I call Ariane Burgess to wind up, I would advise members that there will be just around 5.30pm, obviously not right in the middle of a vote, but just around that time, a comfort break for 10 minutes. I call Ariane Burgess to wind up and to press a withdrawal amendment 37. I thank the minister and members for their comments about the amendments in this group, including Colin Smith's support for all of my amendments. I am aware that the Scottish Government and police are determined to put an end to fox hunting, but there is a small group of people equally determined to continue this cruel practice. Just last weekend there was a news story about the RSPCA and police trying to clamp down on illegal fox hunting in England through raids that seized dogs and made arrests. Our legislation needs to be watertight in order to deter that kind of activity and enable successful law enforcement. That is why, for each section and each amendment, we should consider whether it could be used as a loophole for continued fox hunting. I understand what the minister said about not being too prescriptive, but obtaining a licence to use more than two dogs to hunt wild mammals shouldn't be too easy. It's reasonable—I'm going to continue, actually—that those who want to hunt with several dogs should have a very good specific reason for this. They should have a plan for exactly how they will use the dogs to achieve their stated purpose, and they should make that known to the licensing authority so that the body can be sure that they are not licensing activity, which this Bill is intended to ban. Sufficiently detailed applications, licence conditions and reporting will be critical to ensure that this licensing system is transparent and licence hunting is accountable. On the amendments about ethical wildlife management, they simply aim to ensure that licence hunting is as ethical as possible. How can that not be supportable? If the Government supports the principles of ethical wildlife management in theory, why not demonstrate that by voting for one of these options and ensuring that Nature Scott and the species licensing review also take ethical principles into account? The Scottish Government could show leadership on this. On Nature Scott's shared approach concordat, that keeps being compared to ethical principles, but it's not really comparable. The shared approach isn't about ethics, it's about working together, clear communication, adaptation and so on, but it's not that relevant. It includes one short section on safeguarding welfare, but this is out of date and it doesn't recognise sentience. Presiding Officer, I've been extremely encouraged this afternoon at the amount of interventions that have been allowed by me on members and I'm grateful for that and I always will allow members to intervene on me. During the course of this afternoon, Arianne Burgess has spoken quite a lot and has not taken one single intervention. I know whilst it is her choice, could the Presiding Officer confirm that there is no time limit? Let's hear Mr Mountain. Mr Swinney, Mr Mountain is speaking. I seek for you to give me guidance that no member has been given a cut-off time as far as their speeches are concerned, so they are in a position to accept point of orders during the afternoon. Whilst Mr Swinney might not like that, I'm sure he'll give us a ruling. If we could please refrain from shouting across the chamber, it is absolutely the case that it is wholly in the hands of an individual member as to whether or not they accept an intervention with regards to timetabling. The Parliament has voted on a timetabling motion, but, as ever, Presiding Officers in the Chair, we'll seek to accommodate members as far as possible. We move on. The question is that amendment 37 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 30, 37 in the name of Arian Burgess, is yes, 25, no, 96. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 38 in the name of Arian Burgess, already debated with amendment 37. Arian Burgess to move or not move. The question is that amendment 38 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 38 in the name of Arian Burgess, is yes, 26, no, 96. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 39 in the name of Arian Burgess, already debated with amendment 37. Arian Burgess to move or not move. The question is that amendment 39 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 39, in the name of Arian Burgess, is yes, 26, no, 95. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 2 in the name of Christine Grahame, already debated with amendment 37. Christine Grahame to move or not to move. Presiding Officer, having tested exhaustion in category of persons, I'm satisfied with the minister's response, so not moved. I call amendment 40 in the name of Arian Burgess, already debated with amendment 37. Arian Burgess to move or not to move. The question is that amendment 40 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. Therefore, we'll move to vote and members should cast their votes now. I call Co-Cab Stewart. Can I just ask you to repeat that? No. Thank you. I'm sure that's recorded. The vote is closed. The result of amendment number 40, in the name of Arian Burgess, is yes, 26, no, 95. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 41 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 37. I remind members that if amendment 41 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 42 or 43 due to preemption. Rachel Hamilton to move or not to move. The question is that amendment 41 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. I call Co-Cab Stewart. No. Thank you. I'm sure that's recorded. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 41, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, is yes, 29, no, 93. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 42 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 37. Rachel Hamilton to move or not to move. Moved. The question is that amendment 42 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There is a division and members should cast their votes now. I call Co-Cab Stewart. No. Thank you, Mr Stewart. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 42, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, is yes, 30, no, 92. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 43 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 37. Rachel Hamilton to move or not to move. Moved. The question is that amendment 43 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. I call Co-Cab Stewart. No. Thank you, Mr Stewart. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 43, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, is yes, 29, no, 93. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 44 in the name of Arian Burgess, already debated with amendment 37. Arian Burgess to move or not to move. Moved. The question is that amendment 44 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. I call Co-Cab Stewart. No. Thank you, Mr Stewart. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 44, in the name of Arian Burgess, is yes, 26, no, 96. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 45, in the name of Arian Burgess, already debated with amendment 37. Arian Burgess to move or not to move. Not moved. I call amendment 46, in the name of Colin Smith, already debated with amendment 37. Colin Smith to move or not to move. Moved. The question is that amendment 46 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. I call Co-Cab Stewart. No. Thank you, Mr Stewart. The vote is closed. I call Craig Hoy for a point of order. My app seems to have frozen. I would have voted no. Thank you. We will ensure that it is recorded. The result of the vote on amendment number 46, in the name of Colin Smith, is yes, 26, no, 96. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 47, in the name of Arian Burgess, already debated with amendment 37. Arian Burgess to move or not to move. Moved. The question is that amendment 47 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. I call Co-Cab Stewart. No. Thank you. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 47, in the name of Arian Burgess, is yes, 26, no, 94. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 48, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 37. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 48 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. I call Co-Cab Stewart. No. Thank you. The vote is closed. I call Graham Day for a point of order. Apologies, Presiding Officer. My app is not working. I would have voted no. Thank you. We will ensure that you are recorded. The result of the vote on amendment number 48, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, is yes, 29, no, 93. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 3, in the name of Christine Graham, already debated with amendment 37. Christine Graham to move or not move. Not moved. I call amendment 4, in the name of Christine Graham, already debated with amendment 37. Christine Graham to move or not move. Presiding Officer, I have listened carefully to the minister and the plans to publish data on all natureScot licences. I note the GDPR issues. I will be pressing for progress and looking for a timeline because it is in everyone's interests, including landowners, the public are aware of the land to which the licence applies, the conditions, the effective period and so on. But in the context of other proposed licence registers, by natureScot, I will not be moving. Not moved. At this point, I intend to suspend proceedings for 10 minutes for a comfort break. There will be a division bill to inform members when they require to return to the chamber.