³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

As I understand it, the intention of the bill is to uphold the highest standards of animal welfare while balancing that with the need to control and manage wildlife. My understanding is that the primary reason for the sporting activities is neither animal welfare nor wildlife management. In regard to rough shooting, we heard that the primary reason was enjoyment and pleasure. That is what I mean by my explanation for supporting amendments 2, 4, 6, 8 and 14.

Failing the removal of the exception altogether, the next most reasonable course would be to remove the exception for falconry, as it is not clear to me why it has been included in the bill. Therefore, I will support amendments 123 and 146, in the name of Colin Smyth.

I cannot support amendments 132 to 139, 142 and 143, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, as they would create additional exceptions for hunting with dogs and allow more than two dogs, which is inconsistent with the rest of the bill. I was interested to hear Rachael Hamilton’s explanation of amendment 228 as regards avoiding emotive language, and I would be interested in hearing the minister’s response to that point.

I was also interested to hear Edward Mountain’s explanation for amendments 100 to 102. I am not currently minded to support them but would be interested in hearing the minister’s response to them as well.

Will the member take an intervention?

I thank all members who have lodged amendments in the group.

I will support amendment 110, in the name of Colin Smyth, and I urge other committee members to do the same, because I think that it would clarify the legislation.

I will not support amendment 131, which is in the name of Liam Kerr, because it would undermine the clarity of the offence.

I also cannot support amendments 58 to 62, which are in the name of Edward Mountain and seek to create an exception for rabbits.

I am concerned that amendment 63 would create a loophole for people who claim that they were not intentionally searching for animals.

Amendments 64 to 68 seek to exclude weasels, stoats, mink, polecats and ferrets from the definition of wild mammals and thus from the scope of the bill. I fear that that would leave those animals without any protection against being chased and killed by dogs.

I have some reservations regarding amendments 157, 160, 172 and 173, in the name of Jim Fairlie, which require the licensing authority to specify the minimum number of guns required.

Although that may well increase the likelihood of a clean shot of a wild mammal, I am concerned that it could also increase the risk to humans and other animals, and I would not want to set a precedent for legislation to mandate a minimum number of guns in any context.

I am grateful to all members who have lodged amendments in the group. I will support amendments 2, 4, 6, 8 and 14—that sounds like a song—in the name of Ariane Burgess, as those remove the exception for falconry, game shooting and deer stalking for sport. We have heard frequently from the Scottish Government about the need to balance animal welfare with wildlife management. It is not clear how any of the activities in that exception meet either of those categories, so I fail to see a place for it in the bill.

The primary reason for the exception seems to be so that the Scottish Government can avoid a row with the field sports lobby—although, clearly, that has not worked. Regardless of that, removing that exception altogether would strengthen the bill. Failing that—

I will support amendments 148 to 155 and 168 and 169, in the name of Màiri McAllan, as they will create an exception for relieving the suffering of injured wild mammals and for searching for dead wild mammals without exceeding the two-dog limit. On that basis, I cannot support amendment 168A, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, which would remove the two-dog limit from the new exceptions. I think that that would create a potential loophole.

What are the long-term measures or mitigations that the Government is looking at to make our animal populations more resilient to climate change?

You have said that, in some premises where the disease has been identified, biosecurity lapses have been identified, too. What steps are available to the Scottish Government to bring those premises up to standard? How are those premises being supported to improve their biosecurity?

I have a question about the effect of the disease on different types of birds. Is the virus equally lethal to wild birds and poultry? If it is more lethal to one than the other, is that to do with breeding, the birds’ immune systems or the use of antibiotics? Why does the virus have a different impact on different birds?

Minister, you mentioned earlier that the fear of being chased is part of the animal welfare concern, and I understand that the aim of the bill is to balance animal welfare with wildlife control. Why is there an exception for hunting with dogs in section 6, where the primary purpose is sport rather than wildlife control? How does the inclusion of that exception serve that balance?