���˿���

Mink is the link.

I will speak first to my amendment 13, which seeks to remove section 5, which is on the exception that allows one dog to be used for the

“management of foxes and mink below ground”.

I thank Colin Smyth for supporting the amendment.

Our committee received evidence from the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals on the consequences of sending dogs underground to flush foxes, which included pictures that show dogs and foxes with horrific injuries and disfigured faces, and written evidence about wild animals

“screaming in terror and pain as they were torn apart by dogs”.

How is that compatible with the bill’s pursuit of the highest standards of animal welfare? Dog fighting is illegal in Scotland, so it should be illegal to send a dog underground where there is suspected to be a fox.

My amendments 1, 3, 5 and 7 are consequential to amendment 13. They would simply remove all references to section 5 from sections 1 and 2.

Jenni Minto’s amendments in the group seek to remove mink from the exception, which would mean that it would be an offence to use a dog below ground to search for or flush mink. I will support her amendments 162 to 167, but I urge the committee to also vote for my amendment 13, which would remove the need for those amendments.

Colin Smyth’s amendment 117 stipulates that a fox or a mink that is brought or chased up from below ground by a dog must be shot immediately rather than killed in another way. I will support that amendment.

I will not support Edward Mountain’s amendments 73 to 76 and 81 to 96, or Rachael Hamilton’s amendments 212, 214, 216, 221, 222 and 225. Edward Mountain’s amendments seek to add four other wild animals to the list of animals that can be legally hunted by sending a dog below ground.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 220 specifies that

“a wild mammal which is being searched for or flushed is flushed as soon as reasonably possible after it is located”.

However, that could be used as a justification for using more than two dogs to flush the animal more quickly.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 224 would require, among other things, reasonable steps to be taken to prevent injury to the dog that is used underground. I am concerned that its provisions could be used as an excuse to send two dogs underground so that they could flush the fox more quickly.

Accordingly, I urge the committee to support amendments 1, 3, 5, 7 and 13. I also ask the committee to support the amendments of Jenni Minto and Colin Smyth, but to vote against the other amendments in the group.

I move amendment 1.

I am just winding up.

I will press amendment 1.

I will speak about rough shooting in a moment. We have just had the UK Climate Change Committee’s report, which calls on us to make changes. Over the coming months, we as a committee, and the Parliament, will be looking at various issues and bills, and we should bear in mind that we will need to radically change what we do. When we legislate today for provisions that are going to be used in future, we need to think about why we are doing so. There are pressures that we perceive now, but there will be different pressures in the future. As we are involved in making legislation, we have the challenge of working today to address something that is going to have to change radically.

I am concerned, in particular, about Rachael Hamilton’s amendment on rough shooting, and I thank the minister for her clarifications in that area. In written evidence, Police Scotland stated:

“Although most individuals would respect this law, this aspect of the bill provides a platform to conduct illegal hunting utilising packs of dogs.”

The SSPCA made a similar point, stating:

“as soon as it becomes a loophole, those who are not law abiding will use it as an excuse, which will tarnish everybody who does it lawfully.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, 23 November 2022; c 30.]

My amendments 9 to 12 and 14 to 18 seek to remove the provision for licences permitting the use of more than two dogs in any circumstances and would remove all references to the licensing scheme. My amendments 19 and 20 are consequential and would remove further sections on the licensing schemes.

Licensing the use of two dogs does not align with the aim of pursuing the highest possible animal welfare standards. Foxes that are hunted by packs of dogs are not killed quickly but endure enormous physical and psychological suffering before death, which can involve being torn limb from limb by dogs. The committee heard that around 40 per cent of foxes hunted with packs of dogs are killed by the dogs.

The licensing scheme would be the biggest loophole for those who enjoy hunting wild mammals with packs. Eighty-seven per cent of the Scottish public want a watertight ban on fox hunting with packs. Let us deliver that, not perpetuate the current situation in which conviction is, to use Police Scotland’s word, “impossible”. Bringing in a strict limit of two dogs without a licensing scheme to allow the use of more would make enforcement of the law much more straightforward.

I urge members to support the amendments in my name.

No, fox hunting is not banned. That is part of the reason why the bill has been introduced. The 2002 act had loopholes in it. The committee has discussed that and you have brought up issues about rough shooting. We are introducing legislation on hunting with dogs to be very clear about what can and cannot be done. In this case, licensing will allow people to find ways around the measures to stop hunting.

On other amendments in the group, I support Christine Grahame’s amendments 156 and 159, which would remove the option to grant a licence to a whole “category of persons” to avoid the issuing of a blanket licence that is not strictly necessary for everyone who receives it. I also support her amendment 161, which would require NatureScot to keep a publicly available register of licences, as that would increase transparency and accountability. However, it would better achieve the purposes of the bill to remove the licensing scheme altogether.

I support Colin Smyth’s amendments 116 and 130, which specify that a licence holder must adhere to a set of standards based on

“ethical principles for humane wildlife management”.

I would like to work with Colin Smyth, the Government and other parties before stage 3 to refine that idea and ensure that it is workable in practice.

I also support Jim Fairlie’s amendments 157, 160, 172 and 173, which add that any licence must require the use of the minimum number of guns that NatureScot believes would be effective for killing the wild mammal as soon as possible after it is located or flushed. However, I have concerns about encouraging the greater use of guns in any circumstance, so I would be interested in working with him at stage 3 to add appropriate safeguards to those conditions.

Edward Mountain’s amendment 105 simply seeks to change the reference to “Scottish Natural Heritage” to one to “NatureScot”. I will leave it to the minister to advise on whether that is appropriate.

There are other amendments in the group that I cannot support, but I will not list them all. The minister’s amendment 158 would allow the 14 days for a licence under section 4 to be spread over six consecutive months. I do not support that amendment. If the purpose of the licence is to enable effective wildlife control, spreading out the days when more than two dogs can be used will undermine that purpose. RSPB Scotland knows that you need a period of consecutive days—or, more importantly, nights—when trying to protect other animals from foxes, for example. Having one day here and there to hunt foxes with several dogs would not be effective for achieving that purpose. You need to deal with the problem when it arises, not on separate days spaced out over six months or a year.

I urge the committee to support amendments 9 to 12 and 14 to 18. I encourage it to support Christine Grahame’s amendments 156, 159 and 161, Colin Smyth’s amendments 116 and 130 and Jim Fairlie’s amendments 157, 160, 172 and 173. I will decide how to vote on Rachael Hamilton’s amendments 205 and 232 and Edward Mountain’s amendment 105 after I have heard from them. I ask the committee to vote against all other amendments in the group.

I move amendment 9.

I will continue.

That is even more likely to happen because Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 142, which creates the exception, does not place a limit on the number of dogs, as the other exceptions do. Rachael Hamilton questioned how rough shooting does not comply with the highest possible standards of animal welfare. It is because killing animals for sport is not necessary or justified, so it would not align with the ethical principles for wildlife control.

I will respond to Edward Mountain’s point that falconry and deer stalking are not always done for sport. I accept that, but section 6 seeks to legislate specifically on deer stalking and falconry for sport. His examples would be governed under section 7, which is the section on environmental benefit.

I ask members to consider whether we are legislating for the Scotland of the past, the Scotland of today or the Scotland of the future. Do we want to be a country where we prioritise the entertainment of humans who enjoy hunting over the very life of sentient wild mammals?

I press amendment 2.

My amendment 14 removes the exception that would allow the use of up to two dogs as part of falconry, game shooting and deer stalking. I thank Colin Smyth for supporting it.

Falconry, game shooting and deer stalking are legal in Scotland, but that does not justify the use of dogs when that has such impact on animal welfare that the Scottish Government is introducing legislation to make it, by and large, an offence. Why should there be an exception from that offence for sport, of all purposes? I support the Scottish SPCA’s calls for a complete ban on the use of dogs in sport, which would require removing section 6. Further, we cannot allow that exception to be another loophole for fox hunts, as 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 committee members to consider every amendment from that point of view. Could it be used as a loophole? If falconry, game shooting and deer stalking for sport must persist, those activities should have to be done without the use of dogs.

Amendments 2, 4, 6 and 8 are consequential on amendment 14. They would simply remove all references to section 6 from sections 1 and 2, which define the offences under the bill.

Colin Smyth’s amendment 123 would remove falconry for sport but not game shooting or deer stalking from the field sports exception. I support the amendment and urge members to vote for it in case my amendment 14 is disagreed to. I also support Colin Smyth’s amendment 146, which would remove the restrictive definition of “game shooting” from section 6 and would mean that using dogs while shooting game birds would be subject to the same conditions.

I will not support Rachael Hamilton’s amendments 132 to 139, 227, 228, 142 and 143. I urge the committee to support amendments 2, 4, 6 8 and 14, and Colin Smyth’s amendments 123 and 146, and to vote against Rachael Hamilton’s amendments.

I move amendment 2.

I thank Colin Smyth, Rachael Hamilton and Edward Mountain for lodging and speaking to their amendments in this group. We are legislating for a future Scotland and, as we must respond appropriately and urgently to the climate and nature emergency, it will be a very different Scotland. Rural Scotland and its economy and practices must change.

Colin Smyth’s amendments would result in greater protection for wild mammals, which is the key purpose of the bill, so I will support them. However, in order to afford wild mammals even greater protection, we should remove the relevant section completely, so I urge members to also vote for my amendments in the group.

Again, I cannot support Edward Mountain’s or Rachael Hamilton’s amendments in this group, as the majority of them serve to weaken protection for wild mammals and loosen that loophole.

I will speak to Liam Kerr’s amendment 131. I understand that the thinking behind the amendment is to avoid criminalising people who are genuinely walking their dogs and have lost control of them. However, as drafted, the amendment would make conviction for genuine offences even more difficult. The Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals says that the amendment would create an obvious loophole, because every poacher could claim that their poaching was not the intended use of the dog.

The end of section 1 already makes clear what is required regarding the control of dogs. Rather than create clarity, amendment 131 would give offenders yet another excuse that they could hide behind. Even the Law Society of Scotland acknowledged in oral evidence in June 2022 that that can be used as a loophole. Police Scotland explained in written evidence that hare coursers will often claim that they let their dog off the leash for exercise or to go to the toilet and that it chased a hare of its own free will. We cannot afford to open another loophole, or the bill will soon consist of more loopholes than legislation, when it is attempting to close down loopholes from 2022. I urge members to vote against amendment 131.

Edward Mountain’s amendments in the group, which propose the removal of protection for rabbits, weasels, stoats, mink, polecats and ferrets, would make it permissible to hunt those creatures with dogs. During stage 1 evidence, we heard from Chief Superintendent Flynn that the suffering of all animals that are attacked by a dog will be the same. They are sentient beings, so they will suffer. All animals deserve our respect and humane control methods. I cannot support the amendments.

Rabbits are specifically covered by amendments 58 to 62. The committee has considered the matter at length and I am satisfied with the evidence. We have heard that rabbits should be defined as wild mammals in the legislation in order to prevent the creation of a loophole for hare coursing and for the welfare reasons that I have just outlined.